MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110825799 · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-12-s1-p197

Metabifurcation analysis unveils hidden dynamical structure of a neural population model

2011· article· en· W2110825799 on OpenAlexaff
Federico Frascoli, Lennaert van Veen, Ingo Bojak, David T. J. Liley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParameter spaceBifurcationPopulationAttractorStatistical physicsMathematicsDynamical systems theoryArtificial neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsMathematical analysisStatisticsNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a forthcoming publication [1], we find links between the physiological parameters and dynamics of a neural population model (NPM), which are not accessible by conventional methods. They emerge only when parameter space is systematically partitioned according to bifurcation responses, a method we call “metabifurcation analysis”. This is made possible by an automated bifurcation analysis of a large sample of admissible parameter sets and generalizes straightforwardly to the investigation of other models with large and complex parameter spaces. We study concretely the Liley NPM, which requires 29 different - biologically meaningful - parameters to be specified for bulk activity. In Ref. [2], 73,454 parameter sets were found that generate EEG power spectra predictions closely resembling those of human wakeful rest (“alpha sets”) at physiological neural firing rates. However, like many biologically realistic models (e.g., the Jansen-Rit NPM [3]), the Liley NPM supports a rich variety of dynamics which are generally distributed “fractally” over parameter space. Consequently, “alpha sets” are spread seemingly randomly throughout parameter space and hence a systematic classification of their dynamics and physiological correlations proves difficult. By studying bifurcation diagrams of a sub-sample of 405 “alpha sets”, we discovered that without exception all of them could be classified into two distinct dynamical families with regards to a continuation in R, governing overall inhibitory synaptic strength, and k, the relative effect of inhibition on excitatory vs. inhibitory subpopulations. Essentially, Family 1 (F1) has two almost parallel saddle-node lines in the R-k plane, whereas Family 2 (F2) sports two cusp points organizing two saddle-node wedges. We then sorted all 73,454 “alpha sets” into F1 and F2, respectively, by an automated procedure using AUTO-07P [4] that examined these distinctive features. Four important results were obtained by this bifurcation partitioning: 1) Reactions to the modeled application of the anesthetic agent isoflurane differ, with F2 being three times as likely as F1 to show strong, transient spectral power increases. 2) Exogenous stimuli modeled by thalamic input can control transitions between the dynamic families. 3) Distributions of the values of two excitatory population parameters differed strongly between F1 and F2, providing the potential for endogenous control. 4) The repertoire of (multi)stable oscillations for variations of inhibitory strength R was much more extensive for F2. In summary, we showcase here a new method for partitioning the complex parameter spaces of biologically realistic models according to their bifurcation behavior: “metabifurcation analysis”. For the Liley NPM, we find that one can classify “alpha sets” into two dynamical families that one can speculatively consider as representing “explorative” (F2, multistable oscillatory dynamics) and “consolidating” (F1, simple noise filter dynamics) brain states, where transitions between F1 and F2 are possible via exogenous stimuli.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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