4.8 Article

Reassessing optimal neural population codes with neurometric functions

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1015904108

关键词

tuning curve; noise correlations; mean squared error; minimum discrimination error; Cramer-Rao bound

资金

  1. German National Academic Foundation
  2. German Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology [01GQ0601]
  3. German Excellency Initiative through the Centre for Integrative Neuroscience Tubingen
  4. Max Planck Society
  5. National Eye Institute [R01 EY018847]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cortical circuits perform the computations underlying rapid perceptual decisions within a few dozen milliseconds with each neuron emitting only a few spikes. Under these conditions, the theoretical analysis of neural population codes is challenging, as the most commonly used theoretical tool-Fisher information-can lead to erroneous conclusions about the optimality of different coding schemes. Here we revisit the effect of tuning function width and correlation structure on neural population codes based on ideal observer analysis in both a discrimination and a reconstruction task. We show that the optimal tuning function width and the optimal correlation structure in both paradigms strongly depend on the available decoding time in a very similar way. In contrast, population codes optimized for Fisher information do not depend on decoding time and are severely suboptimal when only few spikes are available. In addition, we use the neurometric functions of the ideal observer in the classification task to investigate the differential coding properties of these Fisher-optimal codes for fine and coarse discrimination. We find that the discrimination error for these codes does not decrease to zero with increasing population size, even in simple coarse discrimination tasks. Our results suggest that quite different population codes may be optimal for rapid decoding in cortical computations than those inferred from the optimization of Fisher information.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据