Similarity in Neuronal Firing Regimes across Mammalian Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The architectonic subdivisions of the brain are believed to be functional modules, each processing parts of global functions. Previously, we showed that neurons in different regions operate in different firing regimes in monkeys. It is possible that firing regimes reflect differences in underlying information processing, and consequently the firing regimes in homologous regions across animal species might be similar. We analyzed neuronal spike trains recorded from behaving mice, rats, cats, and monkeys. The firing regularity differed systematically, with differences across regions in one species being greater than the differences in similar areas across species. Neuronal firing was consistently most regular in motor areas, nearly random in visual and prefrontal/medial prefrontal cortical areas, and bursting in the hippocampus in all animals examined. This suggests that firing regularity (or irregularity) plays a key role in neural computation in each functional subdivision, depending on the types of information being carried. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: By analyzing neuronal spike trains recorded from mice, rats, cats, and monkeys, we found that different brain regions have intrinsically different firing regimes that are more similar in homologous areas across species than across areas in one species. Because different regions in the brain are specialized for different functions, the present finding suggests that the different activity regimes of neurons are important for supporting different functions, so that appropriate neuronal codes can be used for different modalities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".