MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890316161 · doi:10.1002/hipo.23028

A hexagonal Fourier model of grid cells

2018· article· en· W2890316161 on OpenAlexafffund
Ulises Rodríguez‐Domínguez, Jeremy B. Caplan

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsHexagonal crystal systemGridNeuroscienceGrid cellFourier transformHexagonal tilingChemistryNanotechnologyPhysicsPsychologyMaterials scienceCrystallographyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grid cells in rat medial entorhinal cortex are widely thought to play a major role in spatial behavior. However, the exact computational role of the population of grid cells is not known. Here we provide a descriptive model, which nonetheless considers biologically feasible mechanisms, whereby the grid cells are viewed as a two-dimensional Fourier basis set, in hexagonal coordinates, with restricted availability of basis functions. With known properties imposed in the model parameters, we demonstrate how various empirical benchmark findings are straight-forward to understand in this model. We also explain how complex computations, inherent in a Fourier model, are feasible in the medial entorhinal cortex with simple mechanisms. We further suggest, based on model experiments, that grid cells may support a form of lossy compression of contextual information, enabling its representation in an efficient manner. In sum, this hexagonal Fourier model suggests how the entire population of grid cells may be modeled in a principled way, incorporates biologically feasible mechanisms and provides a potentially powerful interpretation of the relationship between grid-cell activity and contextual information beyond spatial knowledge. This enables various phenomena to be modeled with relatively simple mechanisms, and leads to novel and testable predictions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207