MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100682276 · doi:10.1101/134379

The role of untuned neurons in sensory information coding

2017· preprint· en· W3100682276 on OpenAlexafffund
Joel Zylberberg

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsNeural codingStimulus (psychology)PopulationSensory systemNeuroscienceCoding (social sciences)PsychologyCommunicationCognitive psychologyMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To study sensory representations, neuroscientists record neural activities while presenting different stimuli to the animal. From these data, we identify neurons whose activities depend systematically on each aspect of the stimulus. These neurons are said to be “tuned” to that stimulus feature. It is typically assumed that these tuned neurons represent the stimulus feature in their firing, whereas any “untuned” neurons do not contribute to its representation. Recent experimental work questioned this assumption, showing that in some circumstances, neurons that are untuned to a particular stimulus feature can contribute to its representation. These findings suggest that, by ignoring untuned neurons, our understanding of population coding might be incomplete. At the same time, several key questions remain unanswered: Are the impacts of untuned neurons on population coding due to weak tuning that is nevertheless below the threshold the experimenters set for calling neurons tuned (vs untuned)? Do these effects hold for different population sizes and/or correlation structures? And could neural circuit function ever benefit from having some untuned neurons vs having all neurons be tuned to the stimulus? Using theoretical calculations and analyses of in vivo neural data, I answer those questions by: a) showing how, in the presence of correlated variability, untuned neurons can enhance sensory information coding, for a variety of population sizes and correlation structures; b) demonstrating that this effect does not rely on weak tuning; and c) identifying conditions under which the neural code can be made more informative by replacing some of the tuned neurons with untuned ones. These conditions specify when there is a functional benefit to having untuned neurons. Author Summary In the visual system, most neurons’ firing rates are tuned to various aspects of the stimulus (motion, contrast, etc.). For each stimulus feature, however some neurons appear to be untuned: their firing rates do not depend on that stimulus feature. Previous work on information coding in neural populations ignored untuned neurons, assuming that only the neurons tuned to a given stimulus feature contribute to its encoding. Recent experimental work questioned this assumption, showing that neurons with no apparent tuning can sometimes contribute to information coding. However, key questions remain unanswered. First, how do the untuned neurons contribute to information coding, and could this effect rely on those neurons having weak tuning that was overlooked? Second, does the function of a neural circuit ever benefit from having some neurons untuned? Or should every neuron be tuned (even weakly) to every stimulus feature? Here, I use mathematical calculations and analyses of data from the mouse visual cortex to answer those questions. First, I show how (and why) correlations between neurons enable the untuned neurons to contribute to information coding. Second, I show that neural populations can often do a better job of encoding a given stimulus feature when some of the neurons are untuned for that stimulus feature. Thus, it may be best for the brain to segregate its tuning, leaving some neurons untuned for each stimulus feature. Along with helping to explain how the brain processes external stimuli, this work has strong implications for attempts to decode brain signals, to control brain-machine interfaces: better performance could be obtained if the activities of all neurons are decoded, as opposed to only those with strong tuning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207