MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011649229 · doi:10.1109/tmbmc.2020.2981655

Modeling Interference-Free Neuron Spikes With Optogenetic Stimulation

2019· article· en· W3011649229 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Noel, Shayan Monabbati, Dimitrios Makrakis, Andrew W. Eckford

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Molecular Biological and Multi-Scale Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOptogeneticsNeuronBiological neuron modelResting potentialBiological systemMembrane potentialInterference (communication)PhysicsNeuroscienceControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceControl (management)BiologyArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper predicts the ability to externally control the firing times of a cortical neuron whose behavior follows the Izhikevich neuron model. The Izhikevich neuron model provides an efficient and biologically plausible method to track a cortical neuron's membrane potential and its firing times. The external control is a simple optogenetic model represented by an illumination source that stimulates a saturating or decaying membrane current. This paper considers firing frequencies that are sufficiently low for the membrane potential to return to its resting potential after it fires. The time required for the neuron to charge and for the neuron to recover to the resting potential are numerically fitted to functions of the Izhikevich neuron model parameters and the peak input current. Results show that simple functions of the model parameters and maximum input current can be used to predict the charging and recovery times, even when there are deviations in the actual parameter values. Furthermore, the predictions lead to lower bounds on the firing frequency that can be achieved without significant distortion.

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 score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Molecular Biological and Multi-Scale CommunicationsSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207