MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Biologically-Informed Computational Framework for Pathway-Specific Spiking Patterns Generation and Efficacy Evaluation in Retinal Neurostimulators

2021· article· en· W4200378755 on OpenAlexaff
Tayebeh Yousefi, Hossein Kassiri

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference (BioCAS) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptogeneticsStimulus (psychology)Visual prosthesisRetinalNeuroscienceComputer scienceRetinaStimulationPerceptionVisual perceptionRetinal implantBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precise control of neuronal pathways is of critical importance for the efficacy of neuro-modulation prostheses designed to restore vision in patients with retinal degeneration. In this paper, a biologically-informed computational framework that enables generation and optimization of pathway-specific spiking patterns for retina ganglion cells (RGCs) is presented. The developed model is used to generate control signals for an implantable optical retinal neurostimulator device to modulate genetically-modified RGCs, thus enable cell-type-specific neural excitation. The model is also used to compare electrical and optical neuro-stimulations with respect to the quality of the visual perception they induce in the brain for the same visual stimulus. Our simulation results show that the type-specific activation of RGCs (an inherent advantage of optogenetics) makes optical stimulation significantly more effective than electrical stimulation in achieving high structural similarity between the visual stimulus and the estimated perception. The effect of increasing /-Lelectrode//-LLED array density to achieve a better performance in terms of the induced visual perception quality by optical and electrical stimulations was also studied using the developed model. The superiority of optical stimulation in this aspect was demonstrated through simulation results.

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)0.002
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 score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference (BioCAS)Same topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207