ArticlePLoS computational biology2023
Beyond ℓ1 sparse coding in V1.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Neural Model for V1 That Incorporates Dendritic Nonlinearities and Backpropagating Action Potentials.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Relating sparse and predictive coding to divisive normalization.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growing evidence indicates that only a sparse subset from a pool of sensory neurons is active for the encoding of visual stimuli at any instant in time. Traditionally, to replicate such biological sparsity, generative models have been using the ℓ1 norm as a penalty due to its convexity, which makes it amenable to fast and simple algorithmic solvers. In this work, we use biological vision as a test-bed and show that the soft thresholding operation associated to the use of the ℓ1 norm is highly suboptimal compared to other functions suited to approximating ℓp with 0 ≤ p < 1 (including recently proposed continuous exact relaxations), in terms of performance. We show that ℓ1 sparsity employs a pool with more neurons, i.e. has a higher degree of overcompleteness, in order to maintain the same reconstruction error as the other methods considered. More specifically, at the same sparsity level, the thresholding algorithm using the ℓ1 norm as a penalty requires a dictionary of ten times more units compared to the proposed approach, where a non-convex continuous relaxation of the ℓ0 pseudo-norm is used, to reconstruct the external stimulus equally well. At a fixed sparsity level, both ℓ0- and ℓ1-based regularization develop units with receptive field (RF) shapes similar to biological neurons in V1 (and a subset of neurons in V2), but ℓ0-based regularization shows approximately five times better reconstruction of the stimulus. Our results in conjunction with recent metabolic findings indicate that for V1 to operate efficiently it should follow a coding regime which uses a regularization that is closer to the ℓ0 pseudo-norm rather than the ℓ1 one, and suggests a similar mode of operation for the sensory cortex in general.
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.