ArticleeLife2026
Biologically informed cortical models predict optogenetic perturbations.
Article in eLife, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selective perturbation of mirror and non-mirror neurons in an in silico model of the action observation network.iScience · 2026Article
- Balancing Stability and Flow in Hippocampal Networks via Inductive Bias and Learned Symmetry Breaking.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Biologically-constrained spiking neural network for neuromodulation in locomotor recovery after spinal cord injury.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Neural dynamics outside task-coding dimensions drive decision trajectories through transient amplification.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- How Do Transformers Model Physics? Investigating the Simple Harmonic Oscillator.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A recurrent neural network fitted to large electrophysiological datasets may help us understand the chain of cortical information transmission. In particular, successful network reconstruction methods should enable a model to predict the response to optogenetic perturbations. We test recurrent neural networks (RNNs) fitted to electrophysiological datasets on unseen optogenetic interventions and measure that generic RNNs used predominantly in the field generalize poorly on these perturbations. Our alternative RNN model adds biologically informed inductive biases like structured connectivity of excitatory and inhibitory neurons and spiking neuron dynamics. We measure that some biological inductive biases improve the model prediction on perturbed trials in a simulated dataset and a dataset recorded in mice in vivo. Furthermore, we show in theory and simulations that gradients of the fitted RNN can be used to target micro-perturbations in the recorded circuits and discuss the potential utility to bias an animal's behavior and study cortical circuit mechanisms.
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.