Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31632259›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2019

Online Detection of Multiple Stimulus Changes Based on Single Neuron Interspike Intervals.

Lena Koepcke, K Jannis Hildebrandt, Jutta Kretzberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Lena KoepckeComputational Neuroscience, Department of Neuroscience, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
K Jannis HildebrandtCluster of Excellence "Hearing4All", University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Jutta KretzbergComputational Neuroscience, Department of Neuroscience, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nervous systems need to detect stimulus changes based on their neuronal responses without using any additional information on the number, times, and types of stimulus changes. Here, two relatively simple, biologically realistic change point detection methods are compared with two common analysis methods. The four methods are applied to intra- and extracellularly recorded responses of a single cricket interneuron (AN2) to acoustic simulation. Solely based on these recorded responses, the methods should detect an unknown number of different types of sound intensity in- and decreases shortly after their occurrences. For this task, the methods rely on calculating an adjusting interspike interval (ISI). Both simple methods try to separate responses to intensity in- or decreases from activity during constant stimulation. The Pure-ISI method performs this task based on the distribution of the ISI, while the ISI-Ratio method uses the ratio of actual and previous ISI. These methods are compared to the frequently used Moving-Average method, which calculates mean and standard deviation of the instantaneous spike rate in a moving interval. Additionally, a classification method provides the upper limit of the change point detection performance that can be expected for the cricket interneuron responses. The classification learns the statistical properties of the actual and previous ISI during stimulus changes and constant stimulation from a training data set. The main results are: (1) The Moving-Average method requires a stable activity in a long interval to estimate the previous activity, which was not always given in our data set. (2) The Pure-ISI method can reliably detect stimulus intensity increases when the neuron bursts, but it fails to identify intensity decreases. (3) The ISI-Ratio method detects stimulus in- and decreases well, if the spike train is not too noisy. (4) The classification method shows good performance for the detection of stimulus in- and decreases. But due to the statistical learning, this method tends to confuse responses to constant stimulation with responses triggered by a stimulus change. Our results suggest that stimulus change detection does not require computationally costly mechanisms. Simple nervous systems like the cricket's could effectively apply ISI-Ratios to solve this fundamental task.

Indexed as

AN2burst detectionchange point analysiscricketinterspike intervalROCspike codingspike train analysis

Identifiers

PMID31632259
PMCPMC6779812

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.