MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993316641 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-54444-z

Determinants of Brain Rhythm Burst Statistics

2019· article· en· W2993316641 on OpenAlexafffund
Arthur S. Powanwe, André Longtin

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsGeneral Dynamics (Canada)University of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRhythmEnvelope (radar)AmplitudePing (video games)Duration (music)Noise (video)Computer scienceBurstingMaximaNeuroscienceStatisticsPhysicsStatistical physicsMathematicsBiologyArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain rhythms recorded in vivo, such as gamma oscillations, are notoriously variable both in amplitude and frequency. They are characterized by transient epochs of higher amplitude known as bursts. It has been suggested that, despite their short-life and random occurrence, bursts in gamma and other rhythms can efficiently contribute to working memory or communication tasks. Abnormalities in bursts have also been associated with e.g. motor and psychiatric disorders. It is thus crucial to understand how single cell and connectivity parameters influence burst statistics and the corresponding brain states. To address this problem, we consider a generic stochastic recurrent network of Pyramidal Interneuron Network Gamma (PING) type. Using the stochastic averaging method, we derive dynamics for the phase and envelope of the amplitude process, and find that they depend on only two meta-parameters that combine all the model parameters. This allows us to identify an optimal parameter regime of healthy variability with similar statistics to those seen in vivo; in this regime, oscillations and bursts are supported by synaptic noise. The probability density for the rhythm's envelope as well as the mean burst duration are then derived using first passage time analysis. Our analysis enables us to link burst attributes, such as duration and frequency content, to system parameters. Our general approach can be extended to different frequency bands, network topologies and extra populations. It provides the much needed insight into the biophysical determinants of rhythm burst statistics, and into what needs to be changed to correct rhythms with pathological statistics.

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)0.001
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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207