MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386828252 · doi:10.1038/s42003-023-05328-6

Positive and biphasic extracellular waveforms correspond to return currents and axonal spikes

2023· article· en· W4386828252 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shirly Someck, Amir Levi, Hadas E. Sloin, Lidor Spivak, Roni Gattegno, Eran Stark

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAzrieli FoundationIsrael Science FoundationUnited States-Israel Binational Science FoundationRosetrees TrustInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsExtracellularWaveformNeurosciencePhysicsBiophysicsChemistryPsychologyBiologyVoltageBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple biophysical mechanisms may generate non-negative extracellular waveforms during action potentials, but the origin and prevalence of positive spikes and biphasic spikes in the intact brain are unknown. Using extracellular recordings from densely-connected cortical networks in freely-moving mice, we find that a tenth of the waveforms are non-negative. Positive phases of non-negative spikes occur in synchrony or just before wider same-unit negative spikes. Narrow positive spikes occur in isolation in the white matter. Isolated biphasic spikes are narrower than negative spikes, occurring right after spikes of verified inhibitory units. In CA1, units with dominant non-negative spikes exhibit place fields, phase precession, and phase-locking to ripples. Thus, near-somatic narrow positive extracellular potentials correspond to return currents, and isolated non-negative spikes correspond to axonal potentials. Identifying non-negative extracellular waveforms that correspond to non-somatic compartments during spikes can enhance the understanding of physiological and pathological neural mechanisms in intact animals.

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 score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207