The Increased Sensitivity of Irregular Peripheral Canal and Otolith Vestibular Afferents Optimizes their Encoding of Natural Stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficient processing of incoming sensory input is essential for an organism's survival. A growing body of evidence suggests that sensory systems have developed coding strategies that are constrained by the statistics of the natural environment. Consequently, it is necessary to first characterize neural responses to natural stimuli to uncover the coding strategies used by a given sensory system. Here we report for the first time the statistics of vestibular rotational and translational stimuli experienced by rhesus monkeys during natural (e.g., walking, grooming) behaviors. We find that these stimuli can reach intensities as high as 1500 deg/s and 8 G. Recordings from afferents during naturalistic rotational and linear motion further revealed strongly nonlinear responses in the form of rectification and saturation, which could not be accurately predicted by traditional linear models of vestibular processing. Accordingly, we used linear-nonlinear cascade models and found that these could accurately predict responses to naturalistic stimuli. Finally, we tested whether the statistics of natural vestibular signals constrain the neural coding strategies used by peripheral afferents. We found that both irregular otolith and semicircular canal afferents, because of their higher sensitivities, were more optimized for processing natural vestibular stimuli as compared with their regular counterparts. Our results therefore provide the first evidence supporting the hypothesis that the neural coding strategies used by the vestibular system are matched to the statistics of natural stimuli.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".