A review of methods for identifying stochastic resonance in simulations of single neuron models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stochastic resonance (SR) is said to be observed when the presence of noise in a nonlinear system enables an output signal from the system to better represent some feature of an input signal than it does in the absence of noise. The effect has been observed in models of individual neurons, and in experiments performed on real neural systems. Despite the ubiquity of biophysical sources of stochastic noise in the nervous system, however, it has not yet been established whether neuronal computation mechanisms involved in performance of specific functions such as perception or learning might exploit such noise as an integral component, such that removal of the noise would diminish performance of these functions. In this paper we revisit the methods used to demonstrate stochastic resonance in models of single neurons. This includes a previously unreported observation in a multicompartmental model of a CA1-pyramidal cell. We also discuss, as a contrast to these classical studies, a form of 'stochastic facilitation', known as inverse stochastic resonance. We draw on the reviewed examples to argue why new approaches to studying 'stochastic facilitation' in neural systems need to be developed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".