Integrate-and-fire neurons with threshold noise: A tractable model of how interspike interval correlations affect neuronal signal transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many neurons exhibit interval correlations in the absence of input signals. We study the influence of these intrinsic interval correlations of model neurons on their signal transmission properties. For this purpose, we employ two simple firing models, one of which generates a renewal process, while the other leads to a nonrenewal process with negative interval correlations. Different methods to solve for spectral statistics in the presence of a weak stimulus (spike train power spectra, cross spectra, and coherence functions) are presented, and their range of validity is discussed. Using these analytical results, we explore a lower bound on the mutual information rate between output spike train and input stimulus as a function of the system's parameters. We demonstrate that negative correlations in the baseline activity can lead to enhanced information transfer of a weak signal by means of noise shaping of the background noise spectrum. We also show that an enhancement is not compulsory--for a stimulus with power exclusively at high frequencies, the renewal model can transfer more information than the nonrenewal model does. We discuss the application of our analytical results to other problems in neuroscience. Our results are also relevant to the general problem of how a signal affects the power spectrum of a nonlinear stochastic system.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".