Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares the ability of different methods to detect and resolve spikes recorded extracellularly with polytrode and high-density microelectrode arrays (MEAs). Detecting spikes on such arrays is more complex than with single electrodes or tetrodes since a single spike from a neuron may cause threshold crossings on several adjacent channels, giving rise to multiple events. These initial events have to be recognized as belonging to a single spike. Combining them is, in essence, a clustering problem. A conflicting need is to be able to resolve spike waveforms that occur close together in space and time. We first evaluated three different detection methods, using simulated data in which spike shape waveforms obtained from real recordings were added to noise with an amplitude and temporal structure similar to that found in real recordings. Performance was assessed by calculating the percentage of correctly identified spikes vs. the false positive rate. Using the best of these detection methods, two different methods for avoiding multiple detections per spike were tested: one based on windowing and the other based on clustering. Using parameters that avoided spatial and temporal duplication, the spatiotemporal resolution of the two methods was next evaluated. The method based on clustering gave slightly better results. Both methods could resolve spikes occurring 1 ms or more apart, regardless of their spatial separation. There was no restriction on the temporal resolution of spike pairs for units more than 200 μm apart.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".