MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082632508 · doi:10.1063/1.3670512

Testing resonating vector strength: Auditory system, electric fish, and noise

2011· article· en· W2082632508 on OpenAlexaff
J. Leo van Hemmen, André Longtin, Andreas N. Vollmayr

Bibliographic record

VenueChaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
Topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersTechnische Universität MünchenAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>Noise (video)Electric fishAcousticsAuditory systemAudiologyComputer sciencePhysicsBiologyFisheryMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quite often a response to some input with a specific frequency ν(○) can be described through a sequence of discrete events. Here, we study the synchrony vector, whose length stands for the vector strength, and in doing so focus on neuronal response in terms of spike times. The latter are supposed to be given by experiment. Instead of singling out the stimulus frequency ν(○) we study the synchrony vector as a function of the real frequency variable ν. Its length turns out to be a resonating vector strength in that it shows clear maxima in the neighborhood of ν(○) and multiples thereof, hence, allowing an easy way of determining response frequencies. We study this "resonating" vector strength for two concrete but rather different cases, viz., a specific midbrain neuron in the auditory system of cat and a primary detector neuron belonging to the electric sense of the wave-type electric fish Apteronotus leptorhynchus. We show that the resonating vector strength always performs a clear resonance correlated with the phase locking that it quantifies. We analyze the influence of noise and demonstrate how well the resonance associated with maximal vector strength indicates the dominant stimulus frequency. Furthermore, we exhibit how one can obtain a specific phase associated with, for instance, a delay in auditory analysis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear ScienceSame topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcationFrench-language works237,207