ArticlePloS one2012
The natural variation of a neural code.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reprogramming the topology of the nociceptive circuit in C. elegans reshapes sexual behavior.Current biology : CB · 2022Article
- Quantitative Characterization of Output from the Directionally Selective Visual Interneuron H1 in the Grey Flesh FlyJournal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The way information is represented by sequences of action potentials of spiking neurons is determined by the input each neuron receives, but also by its biophysics, and the specifics of the circuit in which it is embedded. Even the "code" of identified neurons can vary considerably from individual to individual. Here we compared the neural codes of the identified H1 neuron in the visual systems of two families of flies, blow flies and flesh flies, and explored the effect of the sensory environment that the flies were exposed to during development on the H1 code. We found that the two families differed considerably in the temporal structure of the code, its content and energetic efficiency, as well as the temporal delay of neural response. The differences in the environmental conditions during the flies' development had no significant effect. Our results may thus reflect an instance of a family-specific design of the neural code. They may also suggest that individual variability in information processing by this specific neuron, in terms of both form and content, is regulated genetically.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.