Optimal Readout of Correlated Neural Activity in a Decision-Making Circuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neural correlates of decision making have been extensively studied with tasks involving a choice between two alternatives that is guided by visual cues. While a large body of work argues for a role of the lateral intraparietal (LIP) region of cortex in these tasks, this role may be confounded by the interaction between LIP and other regions, including medial temporal (MT) cortex. Here, we describe a simplified linear model of decision making that is adapted to two tasks: a motion discrimination and a categorization task. We show that the distinct contribution of MT and LIP may indeed be confounded in these tasks. In particular, we argue that the motion discrimination task relies on a straightforward visuomotor mapping, which leads to redundant information between MT and LIP. The categorization task requires a more complex mapping between visual information and decision behavior, and therefore does not lead to redundancy between MT and LIP. Going further, the model predicts that noise correlations within LIP should be greater in the categorization compared to the motion discrimination task due to the presence of shared inputs from MT. The impact of these correlations on task performance is examined by analytically deriving error estimates of an optimal linear readout for shared and unique inputs. Taken together, results clarify the contribution of MT and LIP to decision making and help characterize the role of noise correlations in these regions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".