Distributed Coding of Evidence Accumulation across the Mouse Brain Using Microcircuits with a Diversity of Timescales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gradual accumulation of noisy evidence for or against options is the main step in the perceptual decision-making process. Using brain-wide electrophysiological recording in mice (Steinmetz et al., 2019), we examined neural correlates of evidence accumulation across brain areas. We demonstrated that the neurons with drift-diffusion model (DDM)-like firing rate activity (i.e., evidence-sensitive ramping firing rate) were distributed across the brain. Exploring the underlying neural mechanism of evidence accumulation for the DDM-like neurons revealed different accumulation mechanisms (i.e., single and race) both within and across the brain areas. Our findings support the hypothesis that evidence accumulation is happening through multiple integration mechanisms in the brain. We further explored the timescale of the integration process in the single and race accumulator models. The results demonstrated that the accumulator microcircuits within each brain area had distinct properties in terms of their integration timescale, which were organized hierarchically across the brain. These findings support the existence of evidence accumulation over multiple timescales. Besides the variability of integration timescale across the brain, a heterogeneity of timescales was observed within each brain area as well. We demonstrated that this variability reflected the diversity of microcircuit parameters, such that accumulators with longer integration timescales had higher recurrent excitation strength.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".