Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37579153›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Scalable Gaussian process inference of neural responses to natural images.

Matías A Goldin, Samuele Virgili, Matthew Chalk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. 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. 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.

Matías A Goldin *Institut de la Vision, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, 17 Rue Moreau, F-75012 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5151-3637
Samuele Virgili *Institut de la Vision, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, 17 Rue Moreau, F-75012 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1693-4580
Matthew ChalkInstitut de la Vision, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, 17 Rue Moreau, F-75012 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7782-4436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predicting the responses of sensory neurons is a long-standing neuroscience goal. However, while there has been much progress in modeling neural responses to simple and/or artificial stimuli, predicting responses to natural stimuli remains an ongoing challenge. On the one hand, deep neural networks perform very well on certain datasets but can fail when data are limited. On the other hand, Gaussian processes (GPs) perform well on limited data but are poor at predicting responses to high-dimensional stimuli, such as natural images. Here, we show how structured priors, e.g., for local and smooth receptive fields, can be used to scale up GPs to model neural responses to high-dimensional stimuli. With this addition, GPs largely outperform a deep neural network trained to predict retinal responses to natural images, with the largest differences observed when both models are trained on a small dataset. Further, since they allow us to quantify the uncertainty in their predictions, GPs are well suited to closed-loop experiments, where stimuli are chosen actively so as to collect "informative" neural data. We show how GPs can be used to actively select which stimuli to present, so as to i) efficiently learn a model of retinal responses to natural images, using few data, and ii) rapidly distinguish between competing models (e.g., a linear vs. a nonlinear model). In the future, our approach could be applied to other sensory areas, beyond the retina.

Indexed as

Nerve NetRetinaVision, Ocularactive sensingcomputational neuroscienceneural encodingvision

Identifiers

PMID37579153
PMCPMC10450671

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.