GABAergic Excitation of Spider Mechanoreceptors Increases Information Capacity by Increasing Entropy Rather than Decreasing Jitter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurotransmitter chemicals excite or inhibit a range of sensory afferents and sensory pathways. These changes in firing rate or static sensitivity can also be associated with changes in dynamic sensitivity or membrane noise and thus action potential timing. We measured action potential firing produced by random mechanical stimulation of spider mechanoreceptor neurons during long-duration excitation by the GABAA agonist muscimol. Information capacity was estimated from signal-to-noise ratio by averaging responses to repeated identical stimulation sequences. Information capacity was also estimated from the coherence function between input and output signals. Entropy rate was estimated by a data compression algorithm and maximum entropy rate from the firing rate. Action potential timing variability, or jitter, was measured as normalized interspike interval distance. Muscimol increased firing rate, information capacity, and entropy rate, but jitter was unchanged. We compared these data with the effects of increasing firing rate by current injection. Our results indicate that the major increase in information capacity by neurotransmitter action arose from the increased entropy rate produced by increased firing rate, not from reduction in membrane noise and action potential jitter.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".