MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184293788 · doi:10.18280/ts.380327

Frontal Cortex Neuron Type Classification with Deep Learning and Recurrence Plot

2021· article· en· W3184293788 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fatma Özcan, Ahmet Alkan

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Support vector machineNaive Bayes classifierArtificial neural networkSpike (software development)Brain–computer interfaceContext (archaeology)NeuroscienceElectroencephalographyPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the goals of neural decoding in neuroscience is to create Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) that use nerve signals. In this context, we are interested in the activity of nerve cells. It is possible to classify nerve cells as excitatory or inhibitors by evaluating individual extra-cellular measurements taken from the frontal cortex of rats. Classification of neurons with only spike timing values has not been studied before, with deep learning, without knowing all of the wave properties and the intercellular interactions. In this study, inter-spike interval values of individual neuronal spike sequences were converted into recurrence plot images to analyze as point processing, image features were extracted using the pre-trained AlexNet with CNN deep learning method, and frontal cortex nerve cell type classification was made. Kernel classification, SVM, Naive Bayes, Ensemble, decision trees classification methods were used. The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity evaluate the proposed methods. A success of more than 81% has been achieved. Thus, the cell type is defined automatically. It has been observed that the ISI properties of spike trains can carry out information on cell type and thus neural network activity. Under these circumstances, these values are significant and important for neuroscientists.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207