Spiking Laguerre Volterra networks—predicting neuronal activity from local field potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Understanding the generative mechanism between local field potentials (LFP) and neuronal spiking activity is a crucial step for understanding information processing in the brain. Up to now, most approaches have relied on simply quantifying the coupling between LFP and spikes. However, very few have managed to predict the exact timing of spike occurrence based on LFP variations. Approach. Here, we fill this gap by proposing novel spiking Laguerre–Volterra network (sLVN) models to describe the dynamic LFP-spike relationship. Compared to conventional artificial neural networks, the sLVNs are interpretable models that provide explainable features of the underlying dynamics. Main results. The proposed networks were applied on extracellular microelectrode recordings of Parkinson’s Disease patients during deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery. Based on the predictability of the LFP-spike pairs, we detected three neuronal populations with unique signal characteristics and sLVN model features. Significance. These clusters were indirectly associated with motor score improvement following DBS surgery, warranting further investigation into the potential of spiking activity predictability as an intraoperative biomarker for optimal DBS lead placement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".