MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089713529 · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-15-s1-p112

A phenomenological model for self-initiated movement in electric fish

2014· article· en· W2089713529 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Melanson, Jorge F. Mejías, James J. Jun, Leonard Maler, André Longtin

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsGeneral Dynamics (Canada)University of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectric fishAttractorComputer scienceProcess (computing)Statistical physicsMovement (music)Scale (ratio)Phenomenological modelFish <Actinopterygii>Biological systemPhysicsMathematicsStatisticsBiologyMathematical analysisAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observing behaviourally unconstrained animals can lead to simple characterization of complex behaviour. We apply this principle to infer the neural dynamics of self-initiated movement in pulse-type electric fish, Gymnotus sp. Recent long-term monitoring of fish (~200 hours from 22 recording sessions, over 4 animals) in freely swimming conditions, devoid of external stimuli, reveals non-trivial structures in their pattern of electric organ discharge (EOD). Simultaneous recording of EODs and fish movement show that the EOD rate (EODR) and the activity level of the fish are bi-modally distributed, as well as highly correlated. These features thus effectively define behavioural attractor states corresponding to high and low levels of neural activity (up- and down-states, respectively). Trajectories in the EODR-activity plane consist of diffusional motion around the attractor states, interrupted by sharp transitions between states. The duration of each state is uncorrelated with that of the next up- or down-state, and is log-normally distributed with no characteristic time-scale. Based on this data, our goal is to develop a modelling framework to better understand the neural pathway responsible for self-initiated movement. However, because the physiological parameters defining this pathway are experimentally unconstrained, it would be premature at this point to develop a detailed biophysical model of this system. There is thus a preliminary need to, instead, characterize the key features of the data from a phenomenological perspective. To address this research gap, we attempt to fit a stochastic process, with the simplest combination of dynamical components, that most closely reproduces the statistics of the data. As a first step, we hypothesize that the first principal component of the data (EODR and activity level) follows an overdamped Brownian motion in a double-well potential with additive noise. Based on the approach of [1], we fit a 4th order polynomial for the potential function by associating the stationary solution of the Fokker-Planck equation with the measured histogram. For most recording sessions, the fits appropriately reproduce the histograms, but consistently underestimates the width of the up-state potential well. Once the potential function is determined, we generate an estimate for the noise intensity by calculating the mean escape time from small regions at the bottom of either well, and comparing it with its theoretical expression. We find, however, that this estimate is dependent on the well that was used to generate it, with all recording sessions showing a larger noise estimate for the up-state than for the down-state. Moreover, in most cases, the ratio of up- to down-state duration is underestimated by the fitted process, indicative of either too short up-states, or too long down-states compared to the data. These findings are consistent with the above discrepancy for the width of the up-state potential well, as well as with visual inspection of the data, which shows greater variability when fish are in up-states. Taken together, these observations strongly suggest that state-dependent noise is involved in the process generating the data, either in the form of multiplicative noise, or Poisson shot noise.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207