MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056220030 · doi:10.1103/physreve.85.041921

Quantifying impacts of short-term plasticity on neuronal information transfer

2012· article· en· W2056220030 on OpenAlexaff
Pat Scott, Anna I. Cowan, Christian Stricker

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeocortexNeuroscienceInformation transferFacilitationComputer scienceSynaptic plasticityInformation transmissionNeuroplasticityPlasticityTerm (time)BiologyPhysicsComputer networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short-term changes in efficacy have been postulated to enhance the ability of synapses to transmit information between neurons, and within neuronal networks. Even at the level of connections between single neurons, direct confirmation of this simple conjecture has proven elusive. By combining paired-cell recordings, realistic synaptic modeling, and information theory, we provide evidence that short-term plasticity can not only improve, but also reduce information transfer between neurons. We focus on a concrete example in rat neocortex, but our results may generalize to other systems. When information is contained in the timings of individual spikes, we find that facilitation, depression, and recovery affect information transmission in proportion to their impacts upon the probability of neurotransmitter release. When information is instead conveyed by mean spike rate only, the influences of short-term plasticity critically depend on the range of spike frequencies that the target network can distinguish (its effective dynamic range). Our results suggest that to efficiently transmit information, the brain must match synaptic type, coding strategy, and network connectivity during development and behavior.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207