MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546108627 · doi:10.1038/ncomms13229

Self-motion evokes precise spike timing in the primate vestibular system

2016· article· en· W2546108627 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohsen Jamali, Maurice J. Chacron, Kathleen E. Cullen

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsVestibular systemNeuroscienceSensory systemComputer scienceStimulus (psychology)Vestibular nucleiSpike-timing-dependent plasticitySpike (software development)Neural codingPostsynaptic potentialBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate representation of self-motion requires the efficient processing of sensory input by the vestibular system. Conventional wisdom is that vestibular information is exclusively transmitted through changes in firing rate, yet under this assumption vestibular neurons display relatively poor detection and information transmission. Here, we carry out an analysis of the system's coding capabilities by recording neuronal responses to repeated presentations of naturalistic stimuli. We find that afferents with greater intrinsic variability reliably discriminate between different stimulus waveforms through differential patterns of precise (∼6 ms) spike timing, while those with minimal intrinsic variability do not. A simple mathematical model provides an explanation for this result. Postsynaptic central neurons also demonstrate precise spike timing, suggesting that higher brain areas also represent self-motion using temporally precise firing. These findings demonstrate that two distinct sensory channels represent vestibular information: one using rate coding and the other that takes advantage of precise spike timing.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations53
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207