↓ Skip to main content

Second Order Dimensionality Reduction Using Minimum and Maximum Mutual Information Models

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Second Order Dimensionality Reduction Using Minimum and Maximum Mutual Information Models
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey D. Fitzgerald, Ryan J. Rowekamp, Lawrence C. Sincich, Tatyana O. Sharpee

Abstract

Conventional methods used to characterize multidimensional neural feature selectivity, such as spike-triggered covariance (STC) or maximally informative dimensions (MID), are limited to Gaussian stimuli or are only able to identify a small number of features due to the curse of dimensionality. To overcome these issues, we propose two new dimensionality reduction methods that use minimum and maximum information models. These methods are information theoretic extensions of STC that can be used with non-Gaussian stimulus distributions to find relevant linear subspaces of arbitrary dimensionality. We compare these new methods to the conventional methods in two ways: with biologically-inspired simulated neurons responding to natural images and with recordings from macaque retinal and thalamic cells responding to naturalistic time-varying stimuli. With non-Gaussian stimuli, the minimum and maximum information methods significantly outperform STC in all cases, whereas MID performs best in the regime of low dimensional feature spaces.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 8%
Germany 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 93 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 36%
Researcher 34 32%
Student > Master 7 7%
Professor 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 35%
Neuroscience 20 19%
Engineering 12 11%
Physics and Astronomy 9 8%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 6 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 March 2012.
All research outputs
#6,820,724
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#4,612
of 9,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,726
of 152,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#46
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,003 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 152,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 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 64% of its contemporaries.