MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904008858 · doi:10.7554/elife.43019

Neuronal variability and tuning are balanced to optimize naturalistic self-motion coding in primate vestibular pathways

2018· article· en· W2904008858 on OpenAlexafffund
Diana Mitchell, Annie Kwan, Jérôme Carriot, Maurice J. Chacron, Kathleen E. Cullen

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)Vestibular systemNeural codingDecorrelationSensory systemComputer sciencePsychologyComputer visionCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is commonly assumed that the brain's neural coding strategies are adapted to the statistics of natural stimuli. Specifically, to maximize information transmission, a sensory neuron's tuning function should effectively oppose the decaying stimulus spectral power, such that the neural response is temporally decorrelated (i.e. 'whitened'). However, theory predicts that the structure of neuronal variability also plays an essential role in determining how coding is optimized. Here, we provide experimental evidence supporting this view by recording from neurons in early vestibular pathways during naturalistic self-motion. We found that central vestibular neurons displayed temporally whitened responses that could not be explained by their tuning alone. Rather, computational modeling and analysis revealed that neuronal variability and tuning were matched to effectively complement natural stimulus statistics, thereby achieving temporal decorrelation and optimizing information transmission. Taken together, our findings reveal a novel strategy by which neural variability contributes to optimized processing of naturalistic stimuli.

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)0.001
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 score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207