MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916657809 · doi:10.1186/s12868-017-0372-1

26th Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting (CNS*2017): Part 3

2017· article· en· W2916657809 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Automated Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity Health Network
FundersFP7 International CooperationNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthDeutschen Schwindel- und GleichgewichtszentrumVlaamse regeringRegione LombardiaAgentura Pro Zdravotnický Výzkum České RepublikyRussian Science FoundationOffice of Naval ResearchUnitatea Executiva pentru Finantarea Invatamantului Superior, a Cercetarii, Dezvoltarii si InovariiAgence Nationale de la RechercheMinistero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione InternazionaleMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadMax-Planck-GesellschaftJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education and Science of the Russian FederationConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistero della SaluteBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloCHDI FoundationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAction Medical ResearchEuropean CommissionSecretaría de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e InnovaciónConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaWellcome TrustGrantová Agentura České RepublikyNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersUniverzita Karlova v PrazeCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueFondation BertarelliOffice of Naval Research GlobalEinstein Stiftung BerlinNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNeuroscienceComputational neuroscienceNeuroinformaticsCognitive scienceComputer sciencePsychologyData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuro computational models represent a powerful tool for bridging
\nthe gap between functions of the neural circuits and observable
\nbehaviors [1]. Once the model has been built, its output is compared
\nwith the observations either to validate the model itself or to propose
\nnew hypotheses. This approach has led to building a multi-scale
\nmodel of the sensorimotor system from muscles, proprioceptors to
\nskeletal joints, spinal regulating centers and central control circuits
\n[2–6].
\nIn this framework, we propose a neural network architecture to
\nsimulate the selection of actions performed by the motor cortex in
\nresponse to a sensory input during a reward-based movement learning.
\nThe network has as many input nodes as the number of different
\nstimuli, each node being a combination of the sensory inputs, and as
\nmany output nodes as the number of different actions that can be
\nperformed, each node being a combination of the motor commands.
\nThe network is fully connected, so that each stimulus concurs to the
\nselection of each action and each action is selected concurrently by
\nall the stimuli. The weights are updated by taking into account both
\nthe expected reward and the actual reward, as suggested in [7]. By
\nadopting this architecture, the percept is represented by a combination
\nof sensory inputs, while the action is represented by a combination
\nof motor commands. Thus, it reproduces faithfully the condition
\nof experiments of motor learning when a set of sensory inputs, such
\nas semantically neutral visual stimuli, are presented to the subject
\nwhose response is merely a motor action, such as pushing a button.
\nUnder such conditions, it then becomes possible to fit the data provided
\nby the experiments with the model to both estimate the validity
\nof the model and to infer the role of the parameter on behavioral
\ntraits.
\nThe simulations were compared to the behaviors of human subjects
\nwhile learning which out of two buttons to press in response to a collection
\nof visual stimuli containing edges and geometric shapes in a
\nreward based setting. The results showed that the behavior of the
\ncomplete system is the one expected under the hypothesis that the
\nreward acts by modulating the action selection triggered by the input
\nstimuli during motor learning. Moreover, differently from most literature
\nmodels, the learning rate varies with the complexity of the task,
\ni.e. the number of input stimuli. It can be argued that the decrease in
\nlearning rate seen in humans learning large set of stimuli could be due
\nto an attenuation of memory traces in real synapses over time. In our
\nfuture investigations, we will work to improve the model by adding
\nsuch an effect in our network.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.225 · 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