Coding movement direction by burst firing in electrosensory neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directional selectivity, in which neurons respond strongly to an object moving in a given direction ("preferred") but respond weakly or not at all to an object moving in the opposite direction ("null"), is a critical computation achieved in brain circuits. Previous measures of direction selectivity have compared the numbers of action potentials elicited by each direction of movement, but most sensory neurons display patterning, such as bursting, in their spike trains. To examine the contribution of patterned responses to direction selectivity, we recorded from midbrain neurons in weakly electric fish and found that most neurons responded with a combination of both bursts and isolated spikes to moving object stimuli. In these neurons, we separated bursts and isolated spikes using an interspike interval (ISI) threshold. The directional bias of bursts was significantly higher than that of either the full spike train or the isolated spike train. To examine the encoding and decoding of bursts, we built biologically plausible models that examine 1) the upstream mechanisms that generate these spiking patterns and 2) downstream decoders of bursts. Our model of upstream mechanisms uses an interaction between afferent input and subthreshold calcium channels to give rise to burst firing that occurs preferentially for one direction of movement. We tested this model in vivo by application of calcium antagonists, which reduced burst firing and eliminated the differences in direction selectivity between bursts, isolated spikes, and the full spike train. Our model of downstream decoders used strong synaptic facilitation to achieve qualitatively similar results to those obtained using the ISI threshold criterion. This model shows that direction selective information carried by bursts can be decoded by downstream neurons using biophysically plausible mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 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".