Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36343230›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022

Systematic reduction of the dimensionality of natural scenes allows accurate predictions of retinal ganglion cell spike outputs.

Julian Freedland, Fred Rieke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Systematic reduction of the dimensionality of natural scenes allows accurate predictions of retinal ganglion cell spike outputs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  12. 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

2 authors.

Julian FreedlandMolecular Engineering & Sciences Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.ORCID 0000-0001-9513-8739
Fred RiekeDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.ORCID 0000-0002-1052-2609

Funding

Mechanisms controlling retinal responses to natural stimuliR01EY028542 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FREDERICK M RIEKE · 2018 to 2026
$3.5M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY028542
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mammalian retina engages a broad array of linear and nonlinear circuit mechanisms to convert natural scenes into retinal ganglion cell (RGC) spike outputs. Although many individual integration mechanisms are well understood, we know less about how multiple mechanisms interact to encode the complex spatial features present in natural inputs. Here, we identified key spatial features in natural scenes that shape encoding by primate parasol RGCs. Our approach identified simplifications in the spatial structure of natural scenes that minimally altered RGC spike responses. We observed that reducing natural movies into 16 linearly integrated regions described ∼80% of the structure of parasol RGC spike responses; this performance depended on the number of regions but not their precise spatial locations. We used simplified stimuli to design high-dimensional metamers that recapitulated responses to naturalistic movies. Finally, we modeled the retinal computations that convert flashed natural images into one-dimensional spike counts.

Indexed as

RetinaRetinal Ganglion CellsAnimalsMammalsPhotic Stimulationneural codingneural computationreceptive field

Identifiers

PMID36343230
PMCPMC9674269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.