↓ Skip to main content

Incremental Mutual Information: A New Method for Characterizing the Strength and Dynamics of Connections in Neuronal Circuits

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Incremental Mutual Information: A New Method for Characterizing the Strength and Dynamics of Connections in Neuronal Circuits
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, December 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001035
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abhinav Singh, Nicholas A. Lesica

Abstract

Understanding the computations performed by neuronal circuits requires characterizing the strength and dynamics of the connections between individual neurons. This characterization is typically achieved by measuring the correlation in the activity of two neurons. We have developed a new measure for studying connectivity in neuronal circuits based on information theory, the incremental mutual information (IMI). By conditioning out the temporal dependencies in the responses of individual neurons before measuring the dependency between them, IMI improves on standard correlation-based measures in several important ways: 1) it has the potential to disambiguate statistical dependencies that reflect the connection between neurons from those caused by other sources (e.g. shared inputs or intrinsic cellular or network mechanisms) provided that the dependencies have appropriate timescales, 2) for the study of early sensory systems, it does not require responses to repeated trials of identical stimulation, and 3) it does not assume that the connection between neurons is linear. We describe the theory and implementation of IMI in detail and demonstrate its utility on experimental recordings from the primate visual system.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 7%
United Kingdom 4 3%
Germany 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Japan 2 2%
Austria 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 98 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 33%
Researcher 30 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 11%
Student > Master 11 9%
Professor 8 7%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 3 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58 47%
Engineering 16 13%
Computer Science 14 11%
Neuroscience 12 10%
Mathematics 6 5%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 4 3%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 December 2010.
All research outputs
#6,331,597
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#4,319
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,471
of 191,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#19
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 191,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.