Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms by which sensory neurons encode and decode information remains an important goal in neuroscience. We quantified the performance of optimal linear and nonlinear encoding models in a well-characterized sensory system: the electric sense of weakly electric fish. We show that linear encoding models generally perform better under spatially localized stimulation than under spatially diffuse stimulation. Through pharmacological blockade of feedback input and spatial saturation of the receptive field center, we show that there is significantly less synaptic noise under spatially diffuse stimuli as compared with spatially localized stimuli. Modeling results suggest that pyramidal cells nonlinearly encode sensory information through shunting in their dendrites and clarify the influence of synaptic noise on the performance of linear encoding models. Finally, we used information theory to quantify the performance of linear decoders. While the optimal linear decoder for spatially localized stimuli could capture 60% of the information in pyramidal cell spike trains, the optimal linear decoder for spatially diffuse stimuli could only capture 40% of the information. These results show that nonlinear decoders are necessary to fully access information in pyramidal cell spike trains, and we discuss potential mechanisms by which higher-order neurons could decode this information.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".