ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
The tuning of tuning: How adaptation influences single cell information transfer.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interactions between homeostatic plasticity and statistical learning: A role for inhibition.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2025Review
- Information transfer and recovery for the sense of touch.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sensory neurons reconstruct the world from action potentials (spikes) impinging on them. To effectively transfer information about the stimulus to the next processing level, a neuron needs to be able to adapt its working range to the properties of the stimulus. Here, we focus on the intrinsic neural properties that influence information transfer in cortical neurons and how tightly their properties need to be tuned to the stimulus statistics for them to be effective. We start by measuring the intrinsic information encoding properties of putative excitatory and inhibitory neurons in L2/3 of the mouse barrel cortex. Excitatory neurons show high thresholds and strong adaptation, making them fire sparsely and resulting in a strong compression of information, whereas inhibitory neurons that favour fast spiking transfer more information. Next, we turn to computational modelling and ask how two properties influence information transfer: 1) spike-frequency adaptation and 2) the shape of the IV-curve. We find that a subthreshold (but not threshold) adaptation, the 'h-current', and a properly tuned leak conductance can increase the information transfer of a neuron, whereas threshold adaptation can increase its working range. Finally, we verify the effect of the IV-curve slope in our experimental recordings and show that excitatory neurons form a more heterogeneous population than inhibitory neurons. These relationships between intrinsic neural features and neural coding that had not been quantified before will aid computational, theoretical and systems neuroscientists in understanding how neuronal populations can alter their coding properties, such as through the impact of neuromodulators. Why the variability of intrinsic properties of excitatory neurons is larger than that of inhibitory ones is an exciting question, for which future research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.