Coding of envelopes by correlated but not single-neuron activity requires neural variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how the brain processes sensory information is often complicated by the fact that neurons exhibit trial-to-trial variability in their responses to stimuli. Indeed, the role of variability in sensory coding is still highly debated. Here, we examined how variability influences neural responses to naturalistic stimuli consisting of a fast time-varying waveform (i.e., carrier or first order) whose amplitude (i.e., envelope or second order) varies more slowly. Recordings were made from fish electrosensory and monkey vestibular sensory neurons. In both systems, we show that correlated but not single-neuron activity can provide detailed information about second-order stimulus features. Using a simple mathematical model, we made the strong prediction that such correlation-based coding of envelopes requires neural variability. Strikingly, the performance of correlated activity at predicting the envelope was similarly optimally tuned to a nonzero level of variability in both systems, thereby confirming this prediction. Finally, we show that second-order sensory information can only be decoded if one takes into account joint statistics when combining neural activities. Our results thus show that correlated but not single-neural activity can transmit information about the envelope, that such transmission requires neural variability, and that this information can be decoded. We suggest that envelope coding by correlated activity is a general feature of sensory processing that will be found across species and systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".