Abstract

When measuring sparseness in neural populations as an indicator of efficient coding, an implicit assumption is that each stimulus activates a different random set of neurons. In other words, population responses to different stimuli are, on average, uncorrelated. Here we examine neurophysiological data from four lobes of macaque monkey cortex, including V1, V2, MT, anterior inferotemporal cortex, lateral intraparietal cortex, the frontal eye fields, and perirhinal cortex, to determine how correlated population responses are. We call the mean correlation the pseudosparseness index, because high pseudosparseness can mimic statistical properties of sparseness without being authentically sparse. In every data set we find high levels of pseudosparseness ranging from 0.59–0.98, substantially greater than the value of 0.00 for authentic sparseness. This was true for synthetic and natural stimuli, as well as for single-electrode and multielectrode data. A model indicates that a key variable producing high pseudosparseness is the standard deviation of spontaneous activity across the population. Consistently high values of pseudosparseness in the data demand reconsideration of the sparse coding literature as well as consideration of the degree to which authentic sparseness provides a useful framework for understanding neural coding in the cortex.

Highlights

  • When measuring sparseness in neural populations as an indicator of efficient coding, an implicit assumption is that each stimulus activates a different random set of neurons

  • The pseudosparseness index was high, in excess of 0.59. This indicates that cortical neural population response vectors are highly correlated for different stimuli, contrary to the general assumption when interpreting population sparseness measures that population responses for different stimuli are uncorrelated

  • Correlation between population responses to different stimuli, can result in measures of artifactually high sparseness

Read more

Summary

Introduction

When measuring sparseness in neural populations as an indicator of efficient coding, an implicit assumption is that each stimulus activates a different random set of neurons. In every data set we find high levels of pseudosparseness ranging from 0.59–0.98, substantially greater than the value of 0.00 for authentic sparseness. This was true for synthetic and natural stimuli, as well as for single-electrode and multielectrode data. Population sparseness is sparseness for a single stimulus across a neural population (with average sparseness calculated over the stimulus set) This differs from lifetime sparseness, sometimes called neural selectivity[14], which is determined by the probability distribution of a single neuron to a set of stimuli. We are concerned here with population sparseness and not lifetime sparseness

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.