MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400861430 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ad6594

Spiking Laguerre Volterra networks—predicting neuronal activity from local field potentials

2024· article· en· W4400861430 on OpenAlexaff
Kyriaki Kostoglou, Konstantinos P. Michmizos, Pantelis Stathis, Damianos E. Sakas, Konstantina S. Nikita, Georgios D. Mitsis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaguerre polynomialsComputer scienceField (mathematics)Local field potentialArtificial intelligenceBiological systemNeuroscienceMathematicsPsychologyMathematical analysisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207