MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312527298 · doi:10.3934/mbe.2023151

Applying machine learning techniques to detect the deployment of spatial working memory from the spiking activity of MT neurons

2022· article· en· W4312527298 on OpenAlexaff
Gayathri Vivekanandhan, Mahtab Mehrabbeik, Karthikeyan Rajagopal, Sajad Jafari, Stephen G. Lomber, Yaser Merrikhi

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Biosciences & Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsSupport vector machineComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Working memoryParticle swarm optimizationMachine learningNeurosciencePsychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural signatures of working memory have been frequently identified in the spiking activity of different brain areas. However, some studies reported no memory-related change in the spiking activity of the middle temporal (MT) area in the visual cortex. However, recently it was shown that the content of working memory is reflected as an increase in the dimensionality of the average spiking activity of the MT neurons. This study aimed to find the features that can reveal memory-related changes with the help of machine-learning algorithms. In this regard, different linear and nonlinear features were obtained from the neuronal spiking activity during the presence and absence of working memory. To select the optimum features, the Genetic algorithm, Particle Swarm Optimization, and Ant Colony Optimization methods were employed. The classification was performed using the Support Vector Machine (SVM) and the K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) classifiers. Our results suggest that the deployment of spatial working memory can be perfectly detected from spiking patterns of MT neurons with an accuracy of 99.65±0.12 using the KNN and 99.50±0.26 using the SVM classifiers.

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)0.001
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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Biosciences & EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207