↓ Skip to main content

Modern Machine Learning as a Benchmark for Fitting Neural Responses

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
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
Modern Machine Learning as a Benchmark for Fitting Neural Responses
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2018.00056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ari S. Benjamin, Hugo L. Fernandes, Tucker Tomlinson, Pavan Ramkumar, Chris VerSteeg, Raeed H. Chowdhury, Lee E. Miller, Konrad P. Kording

Abstract

Neuroscience has long focused on finding encoding models that effectively ask "what predicts neural spiking?" and generalized linear models (GLMs) are a typical approach. It is often unknown how much of explainable neural activity is captured, or missed, when fitting a model. Here we compared the predictive performance of simple models to three leading machine learning methods: feedforward neural networks, gradient boosted trees (using XGBoost), and stacked ensembles that combine the predictions of several methods. We predicted spike counts in macaque motor (M1) and somatosensory (S1) cortices from standard representations of reaching kinematics, and in rat hippocampal cells from open field location and orientation. Of these methods, XGBoost and the ensemble consistently produced more accurate spike rate predictions and were less sensitive to the preprocessing of features. These methods can thus be applied quickly to detect if feature sets relate to neural activity in a manner not captured by simpler methods. Encoding models built with a machine learning approach accurately predict spike rates and can offer meaningful benchmarks for simpler models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 24%
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 26 28%
Engineering 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Computer Science 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 27 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 05 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,023,606
of 24,240,330 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#75
of 1,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,911
of 332,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,240,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 332,792 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.