MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Transitions without change: How the perceived nature of shifts in neural field activity may be due to viewer perspective

2008· article· en· W2301799508 on OpenAlexaff
Elan Ohayon, W. McIntyre Burnham, Hon C. Kwan, Terrence J. Sejnowski, Maxim Bazhenov

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Dynamics (music)Neural activityStatistical physicsBiological systemField (mathematics)PopulationNoise (video)Network dynamicsArtificial neural networkNeurosciencePhysicsLocal field potentialComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsBiologyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: An important goal of experimental and clinical neural field recordings is the identification of mechanisms that underlie transitions in persistent activity. Here we model such activity in order to identify the fundamental factors that may trigger transitions in dynamics. METHODS: We simulated laminar networks of spiking neurons with up to 10,000 inhibitory and excitatory units and varying degrees of connectivity. RESULTS: Activity in networks with heterogeneous connectivity showed various patterns of persistent activity including propagating waves. When activity was averaged over the population to simulate field recordings the dynamics showed ongoing changes in both amplitude and spectral properties. These perceived changes were present despite the absence of alteration to the intrinsic properties of the units or network structure. CONCLUSIONS: The observation that perceived shifts in spectral properties can be the simple result of averaging spatial propagation may have important implications for the interpretation of field recordings. It is often assumed that transitions in dynamics are due to (a) shifts in neural properties (b) changes to network structure (c) external input or (d) noise. The observation that intermittent transitions can take place in the absence of such factors suggests that we must look beyond these assumptions and on to the spatio‐temporal features of neural dynamics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→