Operant conditioning reveals task-specific responses of single neurons in a brain–machine interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . Volitional modulation of single cortical neurons holds great potential for the implementation of brain–machine interfaces (BMIs) because it can induce a rapid acquisition of arbitrary associations between machines and neural activity. It can also be used as a framework to study the limits of single-neuron control in BMIs. Approach . We tested the control of a one-dimensional actuator in two BMI tasks which differed only in the neural contingency that determined when a reward was dispensed. A thresholded activity task, commonly implemented in single-neuron BMI control, consisted of reaching or exceeding a neuron activity level, while the second task consisted of reaching and maintaining a narrow neuron activity level (i.e. windowed activity task). Main findings . Single neurons in layer V of the motor cortex of rats improved performance during both the thresholded activity and windowed activity BMI tasks. However, correct performance during the windowed activity task was accompanied by activation of neighboring neurons, not in direct control of the BMI. In contrast, only neurons in direct control of the BMI were active at the time of reward during the thresholded activity task. Significance . These results suggest that thresholded activity single-neuron BMI implementations are more appropriate compared to windowed activity BMI tasks to capitalize on the adaptability of cortical circuits to acquire novel arbitrary skills.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".