Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35148310›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Bias-free estimation of information content in temporally sparse neuronal activity.

Liron Sheintuch, Alon Rubin, Yaniv Ziv

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Neurodatascience: Past, Present, and Future.Data science in science · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Liron SheintuchDepartment of Neurobiology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-4245-5786
Alon RubinDepartment of Neurobiology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
Yaniv ZivDepartment of Neurobiology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-6658-9303

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Applying information theoretic measures to neuronal activity data enables the quantification of neuronal encoding quality. However, when the sample size is limited, a naïve estimation of the information content typically contains a systematic overestimation (upward bias), which may lead to misinterpretation of coding characteristics. This bias is exacerbated in Ca2+ imaging because of the temporal sparsity of elevated Ca2+ signals. Here, we introduce methods to correct for the bias in the naïve estimation of information content from limited sample sizes and temporally sparse neuronal activity. We demonstrate the higher accuracy of our methods over previous ones, when applied to Ca2+ imaging data recorded from the mouse hippocampus and primary visual cortex, as well as to simulated data with matching tuning properties and firing statistics. Our bias-correction methods allowed an accurate estimation of the information place cells carry about the animal's position (spatial information) and uncovered the spatial resolution of hippocampal coding. Furthermore, using our methods, we found that cells with higher peak firing rates carry higher spatial information per spike and exposed differences between distinct hippocampal subfields in the long-term evolution of the spatial code. These results could be masked by the bias when applying the commonly used naïve calculation of information content. Thus, a bias-free estimation of information content can uncover otherwise overlooked properties of the neural code.

Indexed as

HippocampusHumansNeurons

Identifiers

PMID35148310
PMCPMC8836373

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.