Neural Correlation Is Stimulus Modulated by Feedforward Inhibitory Circuitry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correlated variability of neural spiking activity has important consequences for signal processing. How incoming sensory signals shape correlations of population responses remains unclear. Cross-correlations between spiking of different neurons may be particularly consequential in sparsely firing neural populations such as those found in layer 2/3 of sensory cortex. In rat whisker barrel cortex, we found that pairs of excitatory layer 2/3 neurons exhibit similarly low levels of spike count correlation during both spontaneous and sensory-evoked states. The spontaneous activity of excitatory-inhibitory neuron pairs is positively correlated, while sensory stimuli actively decorrelate joint responses. Computational modeling shows how threshold nonlinearities and local inhibition form the basis of a general decorrelating mechanism. We show that inhibitory population activity maintains low correlations in excitatory populations, especially during periods of sensory-evoked coactivation. The role of feedforward inhibition has been previously described in the context of trial-averaged phenomena. Our findings reveal a novel role for inhibition to shape correlations of neural variability and thereby prevent excessive correlations in the face of feedforward sensory-evoked activation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".