MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225576959 · doi:10.1007/s00422-022-00941-w

Beyond Wilson–Cowan dynamics: oscillations and chaos without inhibition

2022· article· en· W4225576959 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Painchaud, Nicolas Doyon, Patrick Desrosiers

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Cybernetics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du QuébecMcGill University
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesUniversité Laval
KeywordsStatistical physicsChaoticMarkov chainBifurcationDynamics (music)Mean field theoryCHAOS (operating system)PhysicsMathematicsComputer scienceApplied mathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifty years ago, Wilson and Cowan developed a mathematical model to describe the activity of neural populations. In this seminal work, they divided the cells in three groups: active, sensitive and refractory, and obtained a dynamical system to describe the evolution of the average firing rates of the populations. In the present work, we investigate the impact of the often neglected refractory state and show that taking it into account can introduce new dynamics. Starting from a continuous-time Markov chain, we perform a rigorous derivation of a mean-field model that includes the refractory fractions of populations as dynamical variables. Then, we perform bifurcation analysis to explain the occurrence of periodic solutions in cases where the classical Wilson-Cowan does not predict oscillations. We also show that our mean-field model is able to predict chaotic behavior in the dynamics of networks with as little as two populations.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological CyberneticsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207