The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fractal character of the neural spike train in the visual system of the cat
Abstract
We used a variety of statistical measures to identify the point process that describes the maintained discharge of retinal ganglion cells (RGC's) and neurons in the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) of the cat. These measures are based on both interevent intervals and event counts and include the interevent-interval histogram, rescaled range analysis, the event-number histogram, the Fano factor, Allan factor, and the periodogram. In addition, we applied these measures to surrogate versions of the data, generated by random shuffling of the order of interevent intervals. The continuing statistics reveal 1/f-type fluctuations in the data (long-duration power-law correlation), which are not present in the shuffled data. Estimates of the fractal exponents measured for RGC- and their target LGN-spike trains are similar in value, indicating that the fractal behavior either is transmitted form one cell to the other or has a common origin. The gamma-r renewal process model, often used in the analysis of visual-neuron interevent intervals, describes certain short-term features of the RGC and LGN data reasonably well but fails to account for the long-duration correlation. We present a new model for visual-system nerve-spike firings: a gamma-r renewal process whose mean is modulated by fractal binomial noise. This fractal, doubly stochastic point process characterizes the statistical behavior of both RGC and LGN data sets remarkably well.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistics of atomic frequency standards
Allan, D. W. (1966) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/proc.1966.4634 · Cited by 2,692
Parzen, E. (1999) · doi:10.1137/1.9781611971125 · Cited by 1,389
Cited by
Shadlen, M. N., & Newsome, W. T. (1998) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.18-10-03870.1998 · Cited by 2,178
The criticality hypothesis: how local cortical networks might optimize information processing
Beggs, J. M. (2008) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2092 · Cited by 533
Being Critical of Criticality in the Brain
Beggs, J. M., & Timme, N. (2012) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2012.00163 · Cited by 494
The organizing principles of neuronal avalanches: cell assemblies in the cortex?
Plenz, D., & Thiagarajan, T. C. (2007) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2007.01.005 · Cited by 375
Variance as a signature of neural computations during decision making
Churchland, A. K., Kiani, R., Chaudhuri, R., Wang, X.-J., Pouget, A., & Shadlen, M. N. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.12.037 · Cited by 350
“Other violations of the renewallike assumption are characterized in Teich et al. (1997), although we suspect some are simply manifestations of VarCE and less exotic than these authors propose.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Teich, M. C., Heneghan, C., Lowen, S. B., Ozaki, T., & Kaplan, E.
- Venue
- Journal of the Optical Society of America A
- Publisher
- Optica Publishing Group
- Published
- 1997-03-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 529
- ISSN
- 1084-7529 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8532
- OpenAlex
- W2056020537
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fractal character of the neural spike train in the visual system of the cat. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1364/josaa.14.000529
- The paper
- Teich, M. C., Heneghan, C., Lowen, S. B., Ozaki, T., & Kaplan, E. (1997). Fractal character of the neural spike train in the visual system of the cat. Journal of the Optical Society of America A. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.14.000529
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.