Plasticity in inhibitory networks improves pattern separation in early olfactory processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinguishing between nectar and non-nectar odors is challenging for animals due to shared compounds and varying ratios in complex mixtures. Changes in nectar production throughout the day and over the animal's lifetime add to the complexity. The honeybee olfactory system, containing fewer than 1000 principal neurons in the early olfactory relay, the antennal lobe (AL), must learn to associate diverse volatile blends with rewards. Previous studies identified plasticity in the AL circuits, but its role in odor learning remains poorly understood. Using a biophysical computational model, tuned by in vivo electrophysiological data, and live imaging of the honeybee's AL, we explored the neural mechanisms of plasticity in the AL. Our findings revealed that when trained with a set of rewarded and unrewarded odors, the AL inhibitory network suppresses responses to shared chemical compounds while enhancing responses to distinct compounds. This results in improved pattern separation and a more concise neural code. Our calcium imaging data support these predictions. Analysis of a graph convolutional neural network performing an odor categorization task revealed a similar mechanism for contrast enhancement. Our study provides insights into how inhibitory plasticity in the early olfactory network reshapes the coding for efficient learning of complex odors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".