Sparse and dense coding of natural stimuli by distinct midbrain neuron subpopulations in weakly electric fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While peripheral sensory neurons respond to natural stimuli with a broad range of spatiotemporal frequencies, central neurons instead respond sparsely to specific features in general. The nonlinear transformations leading to this emergent selectivity are not well understood. Here we characterized how the neural representation of stimuli changes across successive brain areas, using the electrosensory system of weakly electric fish as a model system. We found that midbrain torus semicircularis (TS) neurons were on average more selective in their responses than hindbrain electrosensory lateral line lobe (ELL) neurons. Further analysis revealed two categories of TS neurons: dense coding TS neurons that were ELL-like and sparse coding TS neurons that displayed selective responses. These neurons in general responded to preferred stimuli with few spikes and were mostly silent for other stimuli. We further investigated whether information about stimulus attributes was contained in the activities of ELL and TS neurons. To do so, we used a spike train metric to quantify how well stimuli could be discriminated based on spiking responses. We found that sparse coding TS neurons performed poorly even when their activities were combined compared with ELL and dense coding TS neurons. In contrast, combining the activities of as few as 12 dense coding TS neurons could lead to optimal discrimination. On the other hand, sparse coding TS neurons were better detectors of whether their preferred stimulus occurred compared with either dense coding TS or ELL neurons. Our results therefore suggest that the TS implements parallel detection and estimation of sensory input.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".