ArticleNeurons, behavior, data analysis, and theory2020
Sensitivity and specificity of a Bayesian single trial analysis for time varying neural signals.
Article in Neurons, behavior, data analysis, and theory, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spike count analysis for multiplexing inference (SCAMPI).Journal of computational neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- Visually evoked activity and variable modulation of auditory responses in the macaque inferior colliculus.Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Signal switching may enhance processing power of the brain.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Multiple sounds degrade the frequency representation in monkey inferior colliculus.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We recently reported the existence of fluctuations in neural signals that may permit neurons to code multiple simultaneous stimuli sequentially across time [1]. This required deploying a novel statistical approach to permit investigation of neural activity at the scale of individual trials. Here we present tests using synthetic data to assess the sensitivity and specificity of this analysis. We fabricated datasets to match each of several potential response patterns derived from single-stimulus response distributions. In particular, we simulated dual stimulus trial spike counts that reflected fluctuating mixtures of the single stimulus spike counts, stable intermediate averages, single stimulus winner-take-all, or response distributions that were outside the range defined by the single stimulus responses (such as summation or suppression). We then assessed how well the analysis recovered the correct response pattern as a function of the number of simulated trials and the difference between the simulated responses to each "stimulus" alone. We found excellent recovery of the mixture, intermediate, and outside categories (>97% correct), and good recovery of the single/winner-take-all category (>90% correct) when the number of trials was >20 and the single-stimulus response rates were 50Hz and 20Hz respectively. Both larger numbers of trials and greater separation between the single stimulus firing rates improved categorization accuracy. These results provide a benchmark, and guidelines for data collection, for use of this method to investigate coding of multiple items at the individual-trial time scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34505116PMC8425354What 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.