MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419279234 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005258

Encoding in Balanced Networks: Revisiting Spike Patterns and Chaos in Stimulus-Driven Systems

2016· article· en· W2419279234 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Lajoie, Kevin K. Lin, Jean-Philippe Thivierge, Eric Shea‐Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of OttawaWashington Research FoundationBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience TübingenNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsENCODEChaoticStimulus (psychology)RandomnessComputer scienceNeuroscienceEncoding (memory)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsBiologyPsychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highly connected recurrent neural networks often produce chaotic dynamics, meaning their precise activity is sensitive to small perturbations. What are the consequences of chaos for how such networks encode streams of temporal stimuli? On the one hand, chaos is a strong source of randomness, suggesting that small changes in stimuli will be obscured by intrinsically generated variability. On the other hand, recent work shows that the type of chaos that occurs in spiking networks can have a surprisingly low-dimensional structure, suggesting that there may be room for fine stimulus features to be precisely resolved. Here we show that strongly chaotic networks produce patterned spikes that reliably encode time-dependent stimuli: using a decoder sensitive to spike times on timescales of 10's of ms, one can easily distinguish responses to very similar inputs. Moreover, recurrence serves to distribute signals throughout chaotic networks so that small groups of cells can encode substantial information about signals arriving elsewhere. A conclusion is that the presence of strong chaos in recurrent networks need not exclude precise encoding of temporal stimuli via spike patterns.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207