Perception and coding of envelopes in weakly electric fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural sensory stimuli have a rich spatiotemporal structure and can often be characterized as a high frequency signal that is independently modulated at lower frequencies. This lower frequency modulation is known as the envelope. Envelopes are commonly found in a variety of sensory signals, such as contrast modulations of visual stimuli and amplitude modulations of auditory stimuli. While psychophysical studies have shown that envelopes can carry information that is essential for perception, how envelope information is processed in the brain is poorly understood. Here we review the behavioral salience and neural mechanisms for the processing of envelopes in the electrosensory system of wave-type gymnotiform weakly electric fishes. These fish can generate envelope signals through movement, interactions of their electric fields in social groups or communication signals. The envelopes that result from the first two behavioral contexts differ in their frequency content, with movement envelopes typically being of lower frequency. Recent behavioral evidence has shown that weakly electric fish respond in robust and stereotypical ways to social envelopes to increase the envelope frequency. Finally, neurophysiological results show how envelopes are processed by peripheral and central electrosensory neurons. Peripheral electrosensory neurons respond to both stimulus and envelope signals. Neurons in the primary hindbrain recipient of these afferents, the electrosensory lateral line lobe (ELL), exhibit heterogeneities in their responses to stimulus and envelope signals. Complete segregation of stimulus and envelope information is achieved in neurons in the target of ELL efferents, the midbrain torus semicircularis (Ts).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".