Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22815519›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2012

Nonlinear computations underlying temporal and population sparseness in the auditory system of the grasshopper.

Jan Clemens, Sandra Wohlgemuth, Bernhard Ronacher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Robustness of an innate releasing mechanism against degradation of acoustic communication signals in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Relative weighting of acoustic information during mating decisions in grasshoppers indicates signatures of sexual selection.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2017
    Article
  8. Response recovery in the locust auditory pathway.Journal of neurophysiology · 2016
    Article
  9. Firing-rate resonances in the peripheral auditory system of the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2015
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Computational themes of peripheral processing in the auditory pathway of insects.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2015
    Review
  14. Computational principles underlying recognition of acoustic signals in grasshoppers and crickets.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2015
    Review
  15. Asymmetrical integration of sensory information during mating decisions in grasshoppers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014
    Article
  16. Temperature effects on the tympanal membrane and auditory receptor neurons in the locust.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2014
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Feature extraction and integration underlying perceptual decision making during courtship behavior.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jan ClemensBehavioral Physiology Group, Department of Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany. clemensjan@googlemail.com
Sandra Wohlgemuth
Bernhard Ronacher

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sparse coding schemes are employed by many sensory systems and implement efficient coding principles. Yet, the computations yielding sparse representations are often only partly understood. The early auditory system of the grasshopper produces a temporally and population-sparse representation of natural communication signals. To reveal the computations generating such a code, we estimated 1D and 2D linear-nonlinear models. We then used these models to examine the contribution of different model components to response sparseness. 2D models were better able to reproduce the sparseness measured in the system: while 1D models only captured 55% of the population sparseness at the network's output, 2D models accounted for 88% of it. Looking at the model structure, we could identify two types of computation, which increase sparseness. First, a sensitivity to the derivative of the stimulus and, second, the combination of a fast, excitatory and a slow, suppressive feature. Both were implemented in different classes of cells and increased the specificity and diversity of responses. The two types produced more transient responses and thereby amplified temporal sparseness. Additionally, the second type of computation contributed to population sparseness by increasing the diversity of feature selectivity through a wide range of delays between an excitatory and a suppressive feature. Both kinds of computation can be implemented through spike-frequency adaptation or slow inhibition-mechanisms found in many systems. Our results from the auditory system of the grasshopper are thus likely to reflect general principles underlying the emergence of sparse representations.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAction PotentialsAnimalsAuditory PathwaysComputer SimulationGrasshoppersModels, NeurologicalNeurons

Identifiers

PMID22815519
PMCPMC6621302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.