MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gain Control in CA1 Pyramidal Cells Using Changes in Somatic Conductance

2010· article· en· W2057179329 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fernando R. Fernandez, John A. White

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsConductanceDepolarizationMembrane potentialTonic (physiology)Automatic gain controlNeuroscienceBiophysicsAdaptation (eye)Noise (video)PhysicsBiological systemChemistryBiologyCondensed matter physicsOptoelectronicsComputer scienceAmplifierArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gain modulation is an important feature of neural activity. Previous work has focused on the ability of background synaptic noise to modulate the slope (i.e., gain) of the frequency-current (f-I) relationship in neurons. To date, demonstrations of gain control that are independent of synaptic noise have been limited. We investigated the effects of increasing somatic conductance in the form of tonic inhibition on the initial and steady-state f-I relationship of CA1 pyramidal cells. We find that increasing membrane conductance reduces the gain of the steady-state f-I relationship through a graded increase in the magnitude of spike frequency adaptation. Increased adaptation arises through a conductance-induced depolarization of spike voltage threshold. Thus, by increasing the magnitude of spike frequency adaptation, added conductance can reduce the gain of the steady-state f-I relationship in the absence of random background membrane fluctuations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations49
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207