Biophysical neural adaptation mechanisms enable artificial neural networks to capture dynamic retinal computation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptation is a universal aspect of neural systems that changes circuit computations to match prevailing inputs. These changes facilitate efficient encoding of sensory inputs while avoiding saturation. Conventional artificial neural networks (ANNs) have limited adaptive capabilities, hindering their ability to reliably predict neural output under dynamic input conditions. Can embedding neural adaptive mechanisms in ANNs improve their performance? To answer this question, we develop a new deep learning model of the retina that incorporates the biophysics of photoreceptor adaptation at the front-end of conventional convolutional neural networks (CNNs). These conventional CNNs build on ‘Deep Retina,’ a previously developed model of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) activity. CNNs that include this new photoreceptor layer outperform conventional CNN models at predicting primate and rat RGC responses to naturalistic stimuli that include dynamic local intensity changes and large changes in the ambient illumination. These improved predictions result directly from adaptation within the phototransduction cascade. This research underscores the potential of embedding models of neural adaptation in ANNs and using them to determine how neural circuits manage the complexities of encoding natural inputs that are dynamic and span a large range of light levels.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".