Stimulus-dependent functional network topology in mouse visual cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information is processed by networks of neurons in the brain. On the timescale of sensory processing, those neuronal networks have relatively fixed anatomical connectivity, while functional connectivity, which defines the interactions between neurons, can vary depending on the ongoing activity of the neurons within the network. We thus hypothesized that different types of stimuli, which drive different neuronal activities in the network, could lead those networks to display stimulus-dependent functional connectivity patterns. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed electrophysiological data from the Allen Brain Observatory, which utilized Neuropixels probes to simultaneously record stimulus-evoked activity from hundreds of neurons across 6 different regions of mouse visual cortex. The recordings had single-cell resolution and high temporal fidelity, enabling us to determine fine-scale functional connectivity. Comparing the functional connectivity patterns observed when different stimuli were presented to the mice, we made several nontrivial observations. First, while the frequencies of different connectivity motifs (i.e., the patterns of connectivity between triplets of neurons) were preserved across stimuli, the identities of the neurons within those motifs changed. This means that functional connectivity dynamically changes along with the input stimulus, but does so in a way that preserves the motif frequencies. Secondly, we found that the degree to which functional modules are contained within a single brain region (as opposed to being distributed between regions) increases with increasing stimulus complexity. This suggests a mechanism for how the brain could dynamically alter its computations based on its inputs. Altogether, our work reveals unexpected stimulus-dependence to the way groups of neurons interact to process incoming sensory information.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".