Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31686023›Full record

ArticleNature neuroscience2019

Inception loops discover what excites neurons most using deep predictive models.

Edgar Y Walker, Fabian H Sinz, Erick Cobos, Taliah Muhammad, Emmanouil Froudarakis, Paul G Fahey, Alexander S Ecker, Jacob Reimer, Xaq Pitkow, Andreas S Tolias

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing 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

113 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Making models disagree to learn how brains compute.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A TALE OF TWO TAILS: PREFERRED AND ANTI-PREFERRED NATURAL STIMULI IN VISUAL CORTEX.... International Conference on Learning Representations · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Edgar Y Walker *Center for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. eywalker@bcm.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0057-957X
Fabian H Sinz *Center for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. fabian.sinz@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1348-9736
Erick CobosCenter for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Taliah MuhammadCenter for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Emmanouil FroudarakisCenter for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3249-3845
Paul G FaheyCenter for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Alexander S EckerCenter for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2392-5105
Jacob ReimerCenter for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Xaq PitkowCenter for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6376-329X
Andreas S ToliasCenter for Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. astolias@bcm.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4305-6376

Funding

VISION RESEARCH CENTERP30EY002520 · NEI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI Samuel M Wu · 1985 to 2026
$14.8M
Probabilistic coding in cortical populationsR01EY026927 · NEI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI MA, WEI JI, TOLIAS, ANDREAS · 2017 to 2021
$1.9M
Feature Selectivity and Interneuron Connectivity Principles of Clonally-Related Excitatory Neurons in Mouse Primary Visual CortexF30MH112312 · NIMH · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI FAHEY, PAUL GERRARD · 2016 to 2018
$135k
Representation and propagation of uncertainty information in cortical populationsF30EY025510 · NEI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI WALKER, EDGAR YASUHIRO · 2016 to 2018
$93k
NEI NIH HHS F30 EY025510
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Finding sensory stimuli that drive neurons optimally is central to understanding information processing in the brain. However, optimizing sensory input is difficult due to the predominantly nonlinear nature of sensory processing and high dimensionality of the input. We developed 'inception loops', a closed-loop experimental paradigm combining in vivo recordings from thousands of neurons with in silico nonlinear response modeling. Our end-to-end trained, deep-learning-based model predicted thousands of neuronal responses to arbitrary, new natural input with high accuracy and was used to synthesize optimal stimuli-most exciting inputs (MEIs). For mouse primary visual cortex (V1), MEIs exhibited complex spatial features that occurred frequently in natural scenes but deviated strikingly from the common notion that Gabor-like stimuli are optimal for V1. When presented back to the same neurons in vivo, MEIs drove responses significantly better than control stimuli. Inception loops represent a widely applicable technique for dissecting the neural mechanisms of sensation.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAnimalsComputer SimulationEye MovementsFemaleMaleMiceMice, TransgenicNeuronsNonlinear DynamicsPhotic StimulationVisual CortexVisual Perception

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.