ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Characterizing neural coding performance for populations of sensory neurons: comparing a weighted spike distance metrics to other analytical methods.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection and localization of conspecifics in ghost knifefish are influenced by the relationship between the spatial organization of receptors and signals.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Article
- Spatial coding of conspecifics in the electrosensory system: Early segregation of information streams.PloS one · 2026Article
- Effect of background clutter on neural discrimination in the bat auditory midbrain.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Article
- Synergistic population coding of natural communication stimuli by hindbrain electrosensory neurons.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identity of sensory stimuli is encoded in the spatio-temporal patterns of responses of the encoding neural population. For stimuli to be discriminated reliably, differences in population responses must be accurately decoded by downstream networks. Several methods to compare patterns of responses have been used by neurophysiologists to characterize the accuracy of the sensory responses studied. Among the most widely used analyses, we note methods based on Euclidean distances or on spike metric distances. Methods based on artificial neural networks and machine learning that recognize and/or classify specific input patterns have also gained popularity. Here, we first compare these three strategies using datasets from three different model systems: the moth olfactory system, the electrosensory system of gymnotids, and leaky-integrate-and-fire (LIF) model responses. We show that the input-weighting procedure inherent to artificial neural networks allows the efficient extraction of information relevant to stimulus discrimination. To combine the convenience of methods such as spike metric distances but leverage the advantages of weighting the inputs, we propose a measure based on geometric distances where each dimension is weighted proportionally to how informative it is. We show that the result of this Weighted Euclidian Distance (WED) analysis performs as well or better than the artificial neural network we tested and outperforms the more traditional spike distance metrics. We applied information theoretic analysis to LIF responses and compared their encoding accuracy with the discrimination accuracy quantified through this WED analysis. We show a high degree of correlation between discrimination accuracy and information content, and that our weighting procedure allowed the efficient use of information present to perform the discrimination task. We argue that our proposed measure provides the flexibility and ease of use sought by neurophysiologists while providing a more powerful way to extract relevant information than more traditional methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.