MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463107766 · doi:10.1038/srep28716

Adaptation to second order stimulus features by electrosensory neurons causes ambiguity

2016· article· en· W2463107766 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhubo Zhang, Maurice J. Chacron

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Electric fishSensory systemNeuroscienceAmbiguityNeural codingDecoding methodsSensory AdaptationComputer scienceBiologyPsychologyCognitive psychologyAlgorithmFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207