↓ Skip to main content

Decorrelation of Neural-Network Activity by Inhibitory Feedback

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
190 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
244 Mendeley
citeulike
5 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
Decorrelation of Neural-Network Activity by Inhibitory Feedback
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002596
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Tetzlaff, Moritz Helias, Gaute T. Einevoll, Markus Diesmann

Abstract

Correlations in spike-train ensembles can seriously impair the encoding of information by their spatio-temporal structure. An inevitable source of correlation in finite neural networks is common presynaptic input to pairs of neurons. Recent studies demonstrate that spike correlations in recurrent neural networks are considerably smaller than expected based on the amount of shared presynaptic input. Here, we explain this observation by means of a linear network model and simulations of networks of leaky integrate-and-fire neurons. We show that inhibitory feedback efficiently suppresses pairwise correlations and, hence, population-rate fluctuations, thereby assigning inhibitory neurons the new role of active decorrelation. We quantify this decorrelation by comparing the responses of the intact recurrent network (feedback system) and systems where the statistics of the feedback channel is perturbed (feedforward system). Manipulations of the feedback statistics can lead to a significant increase in the power and coherence of the population response. In particular, neglecting correlations within the ensemble of feedback channels or between the external stimulus and the feedback amplifies population-rate fluctuations by orders of magnitude. The fluctuation suppression in homogeneous inhibitory networks is explained by a negative feedback loop in the one-dimensional dynamics of the compound activity. Similarly, a change of coordinates exposes an effective negative feedback loop in the compound dynamics of stable excitatory-inhibitory networks. The suppression of input correlations in finite networks is explained by the population averaged correlations in the linear network model: In purely inhibitory networks, shared-input correlations are canceled by negative spike-train correlations. In excitatory-inhibitory networks, spike-train correlations are typically positive. Here, the suppression of input correlations is not a result of the mere existence of correlations between excitatory (E) and inhibitory (I) neurons, but a consequence of a particular structure of correlations among the three possible pairings (EE, EI, II).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 244 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 8 3%
United States 5 2%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Sweden 2 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Belarus 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 219 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 35%
Researcher 54 22%
Student > Master 24 10%
Professor 14 6%
Student > Bachelor 11 5%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 22 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 73 30%
Neuroscience 63 26%
Physics and Astronomy 24 10%
Computer Science 19 8%
Mathematics 12 5%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 26 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 August 2012.
All research outputs
#21,011,157
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#8,282
of 9,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,055
of 180,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#98
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,043 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 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 180,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.