Electrosensory processing in<i>Apteronotus albifrons</i>: implications for general and specific neural coding strategies across wave-type weakly electric fish species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how the brain processes sensory input to generate behavior remains an important problem in neuroscience. Towards this end, it is useful to compare results obtained across multiple species to gain understanding as to the general principles of neural coding. Here we investigated hindbrain pyramidal cell activity in the weakly electric fish Apteronotus albifrons We found strong heterogeneities when looking at baseline activity. Additionally, ON- and OFF-type cells responded to increases and decreases of sinusoidal and noise stimuli, respectively. While both cell types displayed band-pass tuning, OFF-type cells were more broadly tuned than their ON-type counterparts. The observed heterogeneities in baseline activity as well as the greater broadband tuning of OFF-type cells were both similar to those previously reported in other weakly electric fish species, suggesting that they constitute general features of sensory processing. However, we found that peak tuning occurred at frequencies ∼15 Hz in A. albifrons, which is much lower than values reported in the closely related species Apteronotus leptorhynchus and the more distantly related species Eigenmannia virescens In response to stimuli with time-varying amplitude (i.e., envelope), ON- and OFF-type cells displayed similar high-pass tuning curves characteristic of fractional differentiation and possibly indicate optimized coding. These tuning curves were qualitatively similar to those of pyramidal cells in the closely related species A. leptorhynchus In conclusion, comparison between our and previous results reveals general and species-specific neural coding strategies. We hypothesize that differences in coding strategies, when observed, result from different stimulus distributions in the natural/social environment.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".