Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33597665›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Spike bursting in a dragonfly target-detecting neuron.

Joseph M Fabian, Steven D Wiederman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Superconducting Bio-Inspired Au-Nanowire-Based Neurons.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joseph M FabianCentre for Neuroscience, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Joseph.fabian@flinders.edu.au.
Steven D WiedermanAdelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dragonflies visually detect prey and conspecifics, rapidly pursuing these targets via acrobatic flights. Over many decades, studies have investigated the elaborate neuronal circuits proposed to underlie this rapid behaviour. A subset of dragonfly visual neurons exhibit exquisite tuning to small, moving targets even when presented in cluttered backgrounds. In prior work, these neuronal responses were quantified by computing the rate of spikes fired during an analysis window of interest. However, neuronal systems can utilize a variety of neuronal coding principles to signal information, so a spike train's information content is not necessarily encapsulated by spike rate alone. One example of this is burst coding, where neurons fire rapid bursts of spikes, followed by a period of inactivity. Here we show that the most studied target-detecting neuron in dragonflies, CSTMD1, responds to moving targets with a series of spike bursts. This spiking activity differs from those in other identified visual neurons in the dragonfly, indicative of different physiological mechanisms underlying CSTMD1's spike generation. Burst codes present several advantages and disadvantages compared to other coding approaches. We propose functional implications of CSTMD1's burst coding activity and show that spike bursts enhance the robustness of target-evoked responses.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAnimalsNerve NetOdonataSensory Receptor CellsVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID33597665
PMCPMC7889644

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.