Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31892197›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2019

Temporal Limitations of the Standard Leaky Integrate and Fire Model.

Liya Merzon, Tatiana Malevich, Georgiy Zhulikov, Sofia Krasovskaya, W Joseph MacInnes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Liya MerzonVision Modelling Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 109074 Moscow, Russia.
Tatiana MalevichWerner Reichardt Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
Georgiy ZhulikovVision Modelling Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 109074 Moscow, Russia.
Sofia KrasovskayaVision Modelling Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 109074 Moscow, Russia.
W Joseph MacInnesVision Modelling Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 109074 Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Itti and Koch's Saliency Model has been used extensively to simulate fixation selection in a variety of tasks from visual search to simple reaction times. Although the Saliency Model has been tested for its spatial prediction of fixations in visual salience, it has not been well tested for their temporal accuracy. Visual tasks, like search, invariably result in a positively skewed distribution of saccadic reaction times over large numbers of samples, yet we show that the leaky integrate and fire (LIF) neuronal model included in the classic implementation of the model tends to produce a distribution shifted to shorter fixations (in comparison with human data). Further, while parameter optimization using a genetic algorithm and Nelder-Mead method does improve the fit of the resulting distribution, it is still unable to match temporal distributions of human responses in a visual task. Analysis of times for individual images reveal that the LIF algorithm produces initial fixation durations that are fixed instead of a sample from a distribution (as in the human case). Only by aggregating responses over many input images do they result in a distribution, although the form of this distribution still depends on the input images used to create it and not on internal model variability.

Indexed as

leaky integrate and fire modelsaccade generationsalience modelvisual search

Identifiers

PMID31892197
PMCPMC7016704

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.