Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28419098›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

Robust information propagation through noisy neural circuits.

Joel Zylberberg, Alexandre Pouget, Peter E Latham, Eric Shea-Brown

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. A complex network perspective on brain disease.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Computational methods to study information processing in neural circuits.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Joel ZylberbergDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Center for Neuroscience, and Computational Bioscience Program, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8208-5698
Alexandre PougetDepartment of Basic Neuroscience, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Peter E LathamGatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8713-9328
Eric Shea-BrownDepartment of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Allen Institute for Brain Science · USCanadian Institute for Advanced Research · CAOxford Centre for Computational Neuroscience · GBUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensory neurons give highly variable responses to stimulation, which can limit the amount of stimulus information available to downstream circuits. Much work has investigated the factors that affect the amount of information encoded in these population responses, leading to insights about the role of covariability among neurons, tuning curve shape, etc. However, the informativeness of neural responses is not the only relevant feature of population codes; of potentially equal importance is how robustly that information propagates to downstream structures. For instance, to quantify the retina's performance, one must consider not only the informativeness of the optic nerve responses, but also the amount of information that survives the spike-generating nonlinearity and noise corruption in the next stage of processing, the lateral geniculate nucleus. Our study identifies the set of covariance structures for the upstream cells that optimize the ability of information to propagate through noisy, nonlinear circuits. Within this optimal family are covariances with "differential correlations", which are known to reduce the information encoded in neural population activities. Thus, covariance structures that maximize information in neural population codes, and those that maximize the ability of this information to propagate, can be very different. Moreover, redundancy is neither necessary nor sufficient to make population codes robust against corruption by noise: redundant codes can be very fragile, and synergistic codes can-in some cases-optimize robustness against noise.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalComputational BiologyComputer SimulationNerve NetSensory Receptor Cells

Identifiers

PMID28419098
PMCPMC5413111
OpenAlexW2516598420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.