MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318333103 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac521

Spontaneous activity in cortical neurons is stereotyped and non-Poisson

2023· article· en· W4318333103 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicholas V. Swindale, Martin A. Spacek, Matthew R. Krause, Catalin Mitelut

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeurosciencePoisson distributionCortical neuronsAutocorrelationCerebral cortexPoisson processLogarithmMathematicsBiologyStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurons fire even in the absence of sensory stimulation or task demands. Numerous theoretical studies have modeled this spontaneous activity as a Poisson process with uncorrelated intervals between successive spikes and a variance in firing rate equal to the mean. Experimental tests of this hypothesis have yielded variable results, though most have concluded that firing is not Poisson. However, these tests say little about the ways firing might deviate from randomness. Nor are they definitive because many different distributions can have equal means and variances. Here, we characterized spontaneous spiking patterns in extracellular recordings from monkey, cat, and mouse cerebral cortex neurons using rate-normalized spike train autocorrelation functions (ACFs) and a logarithmic timescale. If activity was Poisson, this function should be flat. This was almost never the case. Instead, ACFs had diverse shapes, often with characteristic peaks in the 1-700 ms range. Shapes were stable over time, up to the longest recording periods used (51 min). They did not fall into obvious clusters. ACFs were often unaffected by visual stimulation, though some abruptly changed during brain state shifts. These behaviors may have their origin in the intrinsic biophysics and dendritic anatomy of the cells or in the inputs they receive.

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 score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207