ArticleHippocampus2016
Dynamics of robust pattern separability in the hippocampal dentate gyrus.
Article in Hippocampus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal pattern separation in hippocampal neurons through multiplexed neural codes.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Pattern separation of spiketrains in hippocampal neurons.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Review
- Mechanisms of Persistent Activity in Cortical Circuits: Possible Neural Substrates for Working Memory.Annual review of neuroscience · 2017Review
- Robust information propagation through noisy neural circuits.PLoS computational biology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The dentate gyrus (DG) is thought to perform pattern separation on inputs received from the entorhinal cortex, such that the DG forms distinct representations of different input patterns. Neuronal responses, however, are known to be variable, and that variability has the potential to confuse the representations of different inputs, thereby hindering the pattern separation function. This variability can be especially problematic for tissues such as the DG, in which the responses can persist for tens of seconds following stimulation: the long response duration allows for variability from many different sources to accumulate. To understand how the DG can robustly encode different input patterns, we investigated a recently developed in vitro hippocampal DG preparation that generates persistent responses to transient electrical stimulation. For 10-20 s after stimulation, the responses are indicative of the pattern of stimulation that was applied, even though the responses exhibit significant trial-to-trial variability. Analyzing the dynamical trajectories of the evoked responses, we found that, following stimulation, the neural responses follow distinct paths through the space of possible neural activations, with a different path associated with each stimulation pattern. The neural responses' trial-to-trial variability shifts the responses along these paths rather than between them, maintaining the separability of the input patterns. Manipulations that redistributed the variability more isotropically over the space of possible neural activations impeded the pattern separation function. Consequently, we conclude that the confinement of neuronal variability to these one-dimensional paths mitigates the impacts of variability on pattern encoding and, thus, may be an important aspect of the DG's ability to robustly encode input patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.