MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281636778 · doi:10.1038/s42003-022-03450-5

Deconvolution improves the detection and quantification of spike transmission gain from spike trains

2022· article· en· W4281636778 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lidor Spivak, Amir Levi, Hadas E. Sloin, Shirly Someck, Eran Stark

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIsrael Science FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRosetrees TrustInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsSpike (software development)DeconvolutionSpike trainComputer scienceTransmission (telecommunications)Point processPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceTrainBiological systemAlgorithmMathematicsStatisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate detection and quantification of spike transmission between neurons is essential for determining neural network mechanisms that govern cognitive functions. Using point process and conductance-based simulations, we found that existing methods for determining neuronal connectivity from spike times are highly affected by burst spiking activity, resulting in over- or underestimation of spike transmission. To improve performance, we developed a mathematical framework for decomposing the cross-correlation between two spike trains. We then devised a deconvolution-based algorithm for removing effects of second-order spike train statistics. Deconvolution removed the effect of burst spiking, improving the estimation of neuronal connectivity yielded by state-of-the-art methods. Application of deconvolution to neuronal data recorded from hippocampal region CA1 of freely-moving mice produced higher estimates of spike transmission, in particular when spike trains exhibited bursts. Deconvolution facilitates the precise construction of complex connectivity maps, opening the door to enhanced understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying brain function.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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