↓ Skip to main content

Population coding in mouse visual cortex: response reliability and dissociability of stimulus tuning and noise correlation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Population coding in mouse visual cortex: response reliability and dissociability of stimulus tuning and noise correlation
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2014.00058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorrit S. Montijn, Martin Vinck, Cyriel M. A. Pennartz

Abstract

The primary visual cortex is an excellent model system for investigating how neuronal populations encode information, because of well-documented relationships between stimulus characteristics and neuronal activation patterns. We used two-photon calcium imaging data to relate the performance of different methods for studying population coding (population vectors, template matching, and Bayesian decoding algorithms) to their underlying assumptions. We show that the variability of neuronal responses may hamper the decoding of population activity, and that a normalization to correct for this variability may be of critical importance for correct decoding of population activity. Second, by comparing noise correlations and stimulus tuning we find that these properties have dissociated anatomical correlates, even though noise correlations have been previously hypothesized to reflect common synaptic input. We hypothesize that noise correlations arise from large non-specific increases in spiking activity acting on many weak synapses simultaneously, while neuronal stimulus response properties are dependent on more reliable connections. Finally, this paper provides practical guidelines for further research on population coding and shows that population coding cannot be approximated by a simple summation of inputs, but is heavily influenced by factors such as input reliability and noise correlation structure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
France 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Belarus 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 160 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 30%
Researcher 50 29%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Master 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 18 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 62 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 29%
Physics and Astronomy 10 6%
Computer Science 7 4%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 21 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2014.
All research outputs
#14,653,893
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#747
of 1,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,043
of 227,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.