CUSP: Complex Spike Sorting from Multi-electrode Array Recordings with U-net Sequence-to-Sequence Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Complex spikes (CSs) in cerebellar Purkinje cells convey unique signals complementary to Simple spike (SS) action potentials, but are infrequent and variable in waveform. Their variability and low spike counts, combined with recording artifacts such as electrode drift, make automated detection challenging. New Method: We introduce CUSP (CS sorting via U-net Sequence Prediction), a fully automated deep learning framework for CS sorting in high-density multi-electrode array recordings. CUSP uses a U-Net architecture with hybrid self-attention inception blocks to integrate local field potential and action potential signals and outputs CS event probabilities in a sequence-to-sequence manner. Detected events are clustered and paired with concurrently detected SSs to reconstruct the complete Purkinje cell activity. Results: Trained on cerebellar neuropixels recordings in rhesus macaques, CUSP achieves human-expert performance (F1 = 0.83 ± 0.03) and even captures valid CS events overlooked during manual annotation. Comparison with Existing Methods: CUSP outperforms traditional and state-of-the-art CS and SS sorting algorithms on CS detection. It remains robust to waveform variability, spikelet composition, and electrode drift, enabling accurate CS tracking in long-term recordings. In contrast, existing methods often show false-positive biases or degrade under drift. Conclusions: CUSP provides a scalable, robust framework for analyzing burst-like or dynamically complex spike patterns. Its generalizability makes it valuable for large-scale cerebellar datasets and other neural systems, such as hippocampal pyramidal cells, where complex bursts are critical for computation. By combining expert-level accuracy with automation, CUSP offers a broadly applicable solution for studying information coding across circuits.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".