MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276607561 · doi:10.1152/jn.00699.2015

Grids from bands, or bands from grids? An examination of the effects of single unit contamination on grid cell firing fields

2015· article· en· W2276607561 on OpenAlexafffund
Zaneta Navratilova, Keith B. Godfrey, Bruce L. McNaughton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVlaamse regeringAcademy of FinlandAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsSpurious relationshipGridGrid cellComputer scienceLimitingSpike sortingElectrophysiologySpike (software development)NeuroscienceBiological systemPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceBiologyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural recording technology is improving rapidly, allowing for the detection of spikes from hundreds of cells simultaneously. The limiting step in multielectrode electrophysiology continues to be single cell isolation. However, this step is crucial to the interpretation of data from putative single neurons. We present here, in simulation, an illustration of possibly erroneous conclusions that may be reached when poorly isolated single cell data are analyzed. Grid cells are neurons recorded in rodents, and bats, that spike in equally spaced locations in a hexagonal pattern. One theory states that grid firing patterns arise from a combination of band firing patterns. However, we show here that summing the grid firing patterns of two poorly resolved neurons can result in spurious band-like patterns. Thus, evidence of neurons spiking in band patterns must undergo extreme scrutiny before it is accepted. Toward this aim, we discuss single cell isolation methods and metrics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207