MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804537011 · doi:10.1152/jn.00065.2018

Tuning for rate and duration of frequency-modulated sweeps in the mammalian inferior colliculus

2018· article· en· W2804537011 on OpenAlexafffund
J. A. Morrison, Roberto Valdizón-Rodríguez, Daniel Goldreich, Paul A. Faure

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanada Foundation for InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsInferior colliculusExcitatory postsynaptic potentialStimulus (psychology)Frequency modulationDuration (music)Pulse durationPhysicsNeuroscienceBandwidth (computing)AcousticsBiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialComputer scienceTelecommunicationsPsychologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Responses of auditory duration-tuned neurons (DTNs) are selective for stimulus duration. We used single-unit extracellular recording to investigate how the inferior colliculus (IC) encodes frequency-modulated (FM) sweeps in the big brown bat. It was unclear whether the responses of so-called "FM DTNs" encode signal duration, like classic pure-tone DTNs, or the FM sweep rate. Most FM cells had spiking responses selective for downward FM sweeps. We presented cells with linear FM sweeps whose center frequency (CEF) was set to the best excitatory frequency and whose bandwidth (BW) maximized the spike count. With these baseline parameters, we stimulated cells with linear FM sweeps randomly varied in duration to measure the range of excitatory FM durations and/or sweep rates. To separate FM rate and FM duration tuning, we doubled (and halved) the BW of the baseline FM stimulus while keeping the CEF constant and then recollected each cell's FM duration tuning curve. If the cell was tuned to FM duration, then the best duration (or range of excitatory durations) should remain constant despite changes in signal BW; however, if the cell was tuned to the FM rate, then the best duration should covary with the same FM rate at each BW. A Bayesian model comparison revealed that the majority of neurons were tuned to the FM sweep rate, although a few cells showed tuning for FM duration. We conclude that the dominant parameter for temporal tuning of FM neurons in the IC is FM sweep rate and not FM duration. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Reports of inferior colliculus neurons with response selectivity to the duration of frequency-modulated (FM) stimuli exist, yet it remains unclear whether such cells are tuned to the FM duration or the FM sweep rate. To disambiguate these hypotheses, we presented neurons with variable-duration FM signals that were systematically manipulated in bandwidth. A Bayesian model comparison revealed that most temporally selective midbrain cells were tuned to the FM sweep rate and not the FM duration.

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 score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207