4.5 Article

Dethroning the Fano Factor: A Flexible, Model-Based Approach to Partitioning Neural Variability

期刊

NEURAL COMPUTATION
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 1012-1045

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/neco_a_01062

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH NRSA Training Grant in Quantitative Neuroscience [T32MH065214]
  2. Gatsby Charitable Foundation
  3. NIH [EY018849]
  4. McKnight Foundation
  5. Simons Collaboration on the Global Brain (SCGB) [AWD1004351]
  6. NSF [IIS-1150186]
  7. NIMH [MH099611]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurons in many brain areas exhibit high trial-to-trial variability, with spike counts that are overdispersed relative to a Poisson distribution. Recent work(Goris, Movshon, & Simoncelli, 2014) has proposed to explain this variability in terms of a multiplicative interaction between a stochastic gain variable and a stimulus-dependent Poisson firing rate, which produces quadratic relationships between spike count mean and variance. Here we examine this quadratic assumption and propose a more flexible family of models that can account for a more diverse set of mean-variance relationships. Our model contains additive gaussian noise that is transformed nonlinearly to produce a Poisson spike rate. Different choices of the nonlinear function can give rise to qualitatively different mean-variance relationships, ranging from sublinear to linear to quadratic. Intriguingly, a rectified squaring nonlinearity produces a linear mean-variance function, corresponding to responses with a constant Fano factor. We describe a computationally efficient method for fitting this model to data and demonstrate that a majority of neurons in a V1 population are better described by a model with a nonquadratic relationship between mean and variance. Finally, we demonstrate a practical use of our model via an application to Bayesian adaptive stimulus selection in closed-loop neurophysiology experiments, which shows that accounting for overdispersion can lead to dramatic improvements in adaptive tuning curve estimation.

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

4.5
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