MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128589492 · doi:10.1007/s00422-008-0264-7

Firing patterns in the adaptive exponential integrate-and-fire model

2008· article· en· W2128589492 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard Naud, Nicolas Marcille, Claudia Clopath, Wulfram Gerstner

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Cybernetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesEuropean Commission
KeywordsBurstingBiological neuron modelComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)Exponential functionExponential growthStatistical physicsBiological systemConstant (computer programming)Control theory (sociology)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkPhysicsNeuroscienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For simulations of large spiking neuron networks, an accurate, simple and versatile single-neuron modeling framework is required. Here we explore the versatility of a simple two-equation model: the adaptive exponential integrate-and-fire neuron. We show that this model generates multiple firing patterns depending on the choice of parameter values, and present a phase diagram describing the transition from one firing type to another. We give an analytical criterion to distinguish between continuous adaption, initial bursting, regular bursting and two types of tonic spiking. Also, we report that the deterministic model is capable of producing irregular spiking when stimulated with constant current, indicating low-dimensional chaos. Lastly, the simple model is fitted to real experiments of cortical neurons under step current stimulation. The results provide support for the suitability of simple models such as the adaptive exponential integrate-and-fire neuron for large network simulations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations337
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological CyberneticsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207