↓ Skip to main content

The Correlation Structure of Local Neuronal Networks Intrinsically Results from Recurrent Dynamics

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
The Correlation Structure of Local Neuronal Networks Intrinsically Results from Recurrent Dynamics
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003428
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moritz Helias, Tom Tetzlaff, Markus Diesmann

Abstract

Correlated neuronal activity is a natural consequence of network connectivity and shared inputs to pairs of neurons, but the task-dependent modulation of correlations in relation to behavior also hints at a functional role. Correlations influence the gain of postsynaptic neurons, the amount of information encoded in the population activity and decoded by readout neurons, and synaptic plasticity. Further, it affects the power and spatial reach of extracellular signals like the local-field potential. A theory of correlated neuronal activity accounting for recurrent connectivity as well as fluctuating external sources is currently lacking. In particular, it is unclear how the recently found mechanism of active decorrelation by negative feedback on the population level affects the network response to externally applied correlated stimuli. Here, we present such an extension of the theory of correlations in stochastic binary networks. We show that (1) for homogeneous external input, the structure of correlations is mainly determined by the local recurrent connectivity, (2) homogeneous external inputs provide an additive, unspecific contribution to the correlations, (3) inhibitory feedback effectively decorrelates neuronal activity, even if neurons receive identical external inputs, and (4) identical synaptic input statistics to excitatory and to inhibitory cells increases intrinsically generated fluctuations and pairwise correlations. We further demonstrate how the accuracy of mean-field predictions can be improved by self-consistently including correlations. As a byproduct, we show that the cancellation of correlations between the summed inputs to pairs of neurons does not originate from the fast tracking of external input, but from the suppression of fluctuations on the population level by the local network. This suppression is a necessary constraint, but not sufficient to determine the structure of correlations; specifically, the structure observed at finite network size differs from the prediction based on perfect tracking, even though perfect tracking implies suppression of population fluctuations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
France 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belarus 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 120 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 38%
Researcher 32 24%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 8 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 32%
Neuroscience 35 26%
Physics and Astronomy 19 14%
Computer Science 9 7%
Mathematics 5 4%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 10 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 January 2014.
All research outputs
#14,797,724
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,285
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,550
of 320,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#80
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 320,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.