↓ Skip to main content

It takes two—coincidence coding within the dual olfactory pathway of the honeybee

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
It takes two—coincidence coding within the dual olfactory pathway of the honeybee
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00208
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin F. Brill, Anneke Meyer, Wolfgang Rössler

Abstract

To rapidly process biologically relevant stimuli, sensory systems have developed a broad variety of coding mechanisms like parallel processing and coincidence detection. Parallel processing (e.g., in the visual system), increases both computational capacity and processing speed by simultaneously coding different aspects of the same stimulus. Coincidence detection is an efficient way to integrate information from different sources. Coincidence has been shown to promote associative learning and memory or stimulus feature detection (e.g., in auditory delay lines). Within the dual olfactory pathway of the honeybee both of these mechanisms might be implemented by uniglomerular projection neurons (PNs) that transfer information from the primary olfactory centers, the antennal lobe (AL), to a multimodal integration center, the mushroom body (MB). PNs from anatomically distinct tracts respond to the same stimulus space, but have different physiological properties, characteristics that are prerequisites for parallel processing of different stimulus aspects. However, the PN pathways also display mirror-imaged like anatomical trajectories that resemble neuronal coincidence detectors as known from auditory delay lines. To investigate temporal processing of olfactory information, we recorded PN odor responses simultaneously from both tracts and measured coincident activity of PNs within and between tracts. Our results show that coincidence levels are different within each of the two tracts. Coincidence also occurs between tracts, but to a minor extent compared to coincidence within tracts. Taken together our findings support the relevance of spike timing in coding of olfactory information (temporal code).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 36%
Researcher 12 31%
Student > Master 5 13%
Professor 1 3%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 49%
Neuroscience 11 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 4 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,420,033
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#8,120
of 13,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,295
of 263,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#46
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.