MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060663889 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0604103103

The cellular basis for parallel neural transmission of a high-frequency stimulus and its low-frequency envelope

2006· article· en· W2060663889 on OpenAlexaff
Jason W. Middleton, André Longtin, Jan Benda, Leonard Maler

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)Sensory systemVisual cortexInterneuronAuditory systemAuditory cortexComputer scienceNerve netCommunicationBiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensory stimuli often have rich temporal and spatial structure. One class of stimuli that are common to visual and auditory systems and, as we show, the electrosensory system are signals that contain power in a narrow range of temporal (or spatial) frequencies. Characteristic of this class of signals is a slower variation in their amplitude, otherwise known as an envelope. There is evidence suggesting that, in the visual cortex, both narrowband stimuli and their envelopes are coded for in separate and parallel streams. The implementation of this parallel transmission is not well understood at the cellular level. We have identified the cellular basis for the parallel transmission of signal and envelope in the electrosensory system: a two-cell network consisting of an interneuron connected to a pyramidal cell by means of a slow synapse. This circuit could, in principle, be implemented in the auditory or visual cortex by the previously identified biophysics of cortical interneurons.

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations110
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207