MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307138641 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-22430-7

Neuromodulator-dependent synaptic tagging and capture retroactively controls neural coding in spiking neural networks

2022· article· en· W4307138641 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrew B. Lehr, Jannik Luboeinski, Christian Tetzlaff

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsNeuromodulationNeuroscienceMemory consolidationComputer scienceConsolidation (business)Spiking neural networkArtificial neural networkPsychologyArtificial intelligenceCentral nervous systemHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Events that are important to an individual's life trigger neuromodulator release in brain areas responsible for cognitive and behavioral function. While it is well known that the presence of neuromodulators such as dopamine and norepinephrine is required for memory consolidation, the impact of neuromodulator concentration is, however, less understood. In a recurrent spiking neural network model featuring neuromodulator-dependent synaptic tagging and capture, we study how synaptic memory consolidation depends on the amount of neuromodulator present in the minutes to hours after learning. We find that the storage of rate-based and spike timing-based information is controlled by the level of neuromodulation. Specifically, we find better recall of temporal information for high levels of neuromodulation, while we find better recall of rate-coded spatial patterns for lower neuromodulation, mediated by the selection of different groups of synapses for consolidation. Hence, our results indicate that in minutes to hours after learning, the level of neuromodulation may alter the process of synaptic consolidation to ultimately control which type of information becomes consolidated in the recurrent neural network.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207