MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525011180 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161488

Dynamic Control of Synchronous Activity in Networks of Spiking Neurons

2016· article· en· W2525011180 on OpenAlexaff
Axel Hutt, Andreas Mierau, Jérémie Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceNoise (video)Local field potentialControl theory (sociology)Mechanism (biology)PhysicsNetwork dynamicsComputer scienceBiological systemBiologyControl (management)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oscillatory brain activity is believed to play a central role in neural coding. Accumulating evidence shows that features of these oscillations are highly dynamic: power, frequency and phase fluctuate alongside changes in behavior and task demands. The role and mechanism supporting this variability is however poorly understood. We here analyze a network of recurrently connected spiking neurons with time delay displaying stable synchronous dynamics. Using mean-field and stability analyses, we investigate the influence of dynamic inputs on the frequency of firing rate oscillations. We show that afferent noise, mimicking inputs to the neurons, causes smoothing of the system's response function, displacing equilibria and altering the stability of oscillatory states. Our analysis further shows that these noise-induced changes cause a shift of the peak frequency of synchronous oscillations that scales with input intensity, leading the network towards critical states. We lastly discuss the extension of these principles to periodic stimulation, in which externally applied driving signals can trigger analogous phenomena. Our results reveal one possible mechanism involved in shaping oscillatory activity in the brain and associated control principles.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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