Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27215548›Full record

ArticleJournal of mathematical neuroscience2016

Responses of Leaky Integrate-and-Fire Neurons to a Plurality of Stimuli in Their Receptive Fields.

Kang Li, Claus Bundesen, Susanne Ditlevsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of mathematical neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Kang LiDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark.
Claus BundesenDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 2A, Copenhagen, 1353, Denmark.
Susanne DitlevsenDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark. susanne@math.ku.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A fundamental question concerning the way the visual world is represented in our brain is how a cortical cell responds when its classical receptive field contains a plurality of stimuli. Two opposing models have been proposed. In the response-averaging model, the neuron responds with a weighted average of all individual stimuli. By contrast, in the probability-mixing model, the cell responds to a plurality of stimuli as if only one of the stimuli were present. Here we apply the probability-mixing and the response-averaging model to leaky integrate-and-fire neurons, to describe neuronal behavior based on observed spike trains. We first estimate the parameters of either model using numerical methods, and then test which model is most likely to have generated the observed data. Results show that the parameters can be successfully estimated and the two models are distinguishable using model selection.

Indexed as

Model selectionParameter estimationProbability-mixingResponse-averagingVisual attention

Identifiers

PMID27215548
PMCPMC4877359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.