MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187491660 · doi:10.1038/s42003-021-02437-y

Neocortical inhibitory interneuron subtypes are differentially attuned to synchrony- and rate-coded information

2021· article· en· W3187491660 on OpenAlexafffund
Luke Y. Prince, Matthew M. Tran, Dorian Grey, Lydia Saad, Helen Chasiotis, Jeehyun Kwag, Michael M. Kohl, Blake A. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsInterneuronNeocortexNeuroscienceInhibitory postsynaptic potentialSomatosensory systemExcitatory postsynaptic potentialBiologyStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurons can carry information with both the synchrony and rate of their spikes. However, it is unknown whether distinct subtypes of neurons are more sensitive to information carried by synchrony versus rate, or vice versa. Here, we address this question using patterned optical stimulation in slices of somatosensory cortex from mouse lines labelling fast-spiking (FS) and regular-spiking (RS) interneurons. We used optical stimulation in layer 2/3 to encode a 1-bit signal using either the synchrony or rate of activity. We then examined the mutual information between this signal and the interneuron responses. We found that for a synchrony encoding, FS interneurons carried more information in the first five milliseconds, while both interneuron subtypes carried more information than excitatory neurons in later responses. For a rate encoding, we found that RS interneurons carried more information after several milliseconds. These data demonstrate that distinct interneuron subtypes in the neocortex have distinct sensitivities to synchrony versus rate codes.

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)0.001
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 score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207