Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29077703›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

Point process analysis of noise in early invertebrate vision.

Kris V Parag, Glenn Vinnicombe

Abstract 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

2 authors.

Kris V ParagControl Group, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7806-3605
Glenn VinnicombeControl Group, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Noise is a prevalent and sometimes even dominant aspect of many biological processes. While many natural systems have adapted to attenuate or even usefully integrate noise, the variability it introduces often still delimits the achievable precision across biological functions. This is particularly so for visual phototransduction, the process responsible for converting photons of light into usable electrical signals (quantum bumps). Here, randomness of both the photon inputs (regarded as extrinsic noise) and the conversion process (intrinsic noise) are seen as two distinct, independent and significant limitations on visual reliability. Past research has attempted to quantify the relative effects of these noise sources by using approximate methods that do not fully account for the discrete, point process and time ordered nature of the problem. As a result the conclusions drawn from these different approaches have led to inconsistent expositions of phototransduction noise performance. This paper provides a fresh and complete analysis of the relative impact of intrinsic and extrinsic noise in invertebrate phototransduction using minimum mean squared error reconstruction techniques based on Bayesian point process (Snyder) filters. An integrate-fire based algorithm is developed to reliably estimate photon times from quantum bumps and Snyder filters are then used to causally estimate random light intensities both at the front and back end of the phototransduction cascade. Comparison of these estimates reveals that the dominant noise source transitions from extrinsic to intrinsic as light intensity increases. By extending the filtering techniques to account for delays, it is further found that among the intrinsic noise components, which include bump latency (mean delay and jitter) and shape (amplitude and width) variance, it is the mean delay that is critical to noise performance. As the timeliness of visual information is important for real-time action, this delay could potentially limit the speed at which invertebrates can respond to stimuli. Consequently, if one wants to increase visual fidelity, reducing the photoconversion lag is much more important than improving the regularity of the electrical signal.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalModels, StatisticalAnimalsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationDose-Response Relationship, RadiationDrosophilaMarkov ChainsPhotic StimulationPhotoreceptor Cells, InvertebrateRadiation DosageReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySignal-To-Noise RatioVision, Ocular

Identifiers

PMID29077703
PMCPMC5678801

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.