Adaptation to second order stimulus features by electrosensory neurons causes ambiguity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the coding strategies used to process sensory input remains a central problem in neuroscience. Growing evidence suggests that sensory systems process natural stimuli efficiently by ensuring a close match between neural tuning and stimulus statistics through adaptation. However, adaptation causes ambiguity as the same response can be elicited by different stimuli. The mechanisms by which the brain resolves ambiguity remain poorly understood. Here we investigated adaptation in electrosensory pyramidal neurons within different parallel maps in the weakly electric fish Apteronotus leptorhynchus. In response to step increases in stimulus variance, we found that pyramidal neurons within the lateral segment (LS) displayed strong scale invariant adaptation whereas those within the centromedial segment (CMS) instead displayed weaker degrees of scale invariant adaptation. Signal detection analysis revealed that strong adaptation in LS neurons significantly reduced stimulus discriminability. In contrast, weaker adaptation displayed by CMS neurons led to significantly lesser impairment of discriminability. Thus, while LS neurons display adaptation that is matched to natural scene statistics, thereby optimizing information transmission, CMS neurons instead display weaker adaptation and would instead provide information about the context in which these statistics occur. We propose that such a scheme is necessary for decoding by higher brain structures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".