Preparing for the unpredictable: adaptive feedback enhances the response to unexpected communication signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To interact with the environment efficiently, the nervous system must generate expectations about redundant sensory signals and detect unexpected ones. Neural circuits can, for example, compare a prediction of the sensory signal that was generated by the nervous system with the incoming sensory input, to generate a response selective to novel stimuli. In the first-order electrosensory neurons of a gymnotiform electric fish, a negative image of low-frequency redundant communication signals is subtracted from the neural response via feedback, allowing unpredictable signals to be extracted. Here we show that the cancelling feedback not only suppresses the predictable signal but also actively enhances the response to the unpredictable communication signal. A transient mismatch between the predictive feedback and incoming sensory input causes both to be positive: the soma is suddenly depolarized by the unpredictable input, whereas the neuron's apical dendrites remain depolarized by the lagging cancelling feedback. The apical dendrites allow the backpropagation of somatic spikes. We show that backpropagation is enhanced when the dendrites are depolarized, causing the unpredictable excitatory input to evoke spike bursts. As a consequence, the feedback driven by a predictable low-frequency signal not only suppresses the response to a redundant stimulus but also induces a bursting response triggered by unpredictable communication signals.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".