MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319661532 · doi:10.1152/jn.00588.2011

Sparse and dense coding of natural stimuli by distinct midbrain neuron subpopulations in weakly electric fish

2011· article· en· W2319661532 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeural codingMidbrainNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)HindbrainElectric fishSensory systemNeuronCoding (social sciences)BiologyPsychologyMathematicsCentral nervous systemFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.219 · 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