MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167220163 · doi:10.3109/0954898x.2014.990064

A review of methods for identifying stochastic resonance in simulations of single neuron models

2015· review· en· W2167220163 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetwork Computation in Neural Systems · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
Topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic resonanceComputer scienceStatistical physicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsNoise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.264 · 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