Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37566629›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2023

Receptive field sizes and neuronal encoding bandwidth are constrained by axonal conduction delays.

Tim C Hladnik, Jan Grewe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Tim C HladnikInstitute for Neurobiology, Eberhardt Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9325-2087
Jan GreweInstitute for Neurobiology, Eberhardt Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6254-2425

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies on population coding implicitly assume that spikes from the presynaptic cells arrive simultaneously at the integrating neuron. In natural neuronal populations, this is usually not the case-neuronal signaling takes time and populations cover a certain space. The spread of spike arrival times depends on population size, cell density and axonal conduction velocity. Here we analyze the consequences of population size and axonal conduction delays on the stimulus encoding performance in the electrosensory system of the electric fish Apteronotus leptorhynchus. We experimentally locate p-type electroreceptor afferents along the rostro-caudal body axis and relate locations to neurophysiological response properties. In an information-theoretical approach we analyze the coding performance in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. As expected, the amount of information increases with population size and, on average, heterogeneous populations encode better than the average same-size homogeneous population, if conduction delays are compensated for. The spread of neuronal conduction delays within a receptive field strongly degrades encoding of high-frequency stimulus components. Receptive field sizes typically found in the electrosensory lateral line lobe of A. leptorhynchus appear to be a good compromise between the spread of conduction delays and encoding performance. The limitations imposed by finite axonal conduction velocity are relevant for any converging network as is shown by model populations of LIF neurons. The bandwidth of natural stimuli and the maximum meaningful population sizes are constrained by conduction delays and may thus impact the optimal design of nervous systems.

Indexed as

Electric FishNeuronsAnimalsElectric Organ

Identifiers

PMID37566629
PMCPMC10446211

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.