ArticlePLoS biology2023
Effects of stochastic coding on olfactory discrimination in flies and mice.
Article in PLoS biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A voltage-dependent switch underlies efficient yet specific learning and memory.Current biology : CB · 2026Article
- Projection-specific Routing of Odor Information in the Olfactory Cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Improved inference of latent neural states from calcium imaging data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
- A Perspective on Neuroscience Data Standardization with Neurodata Without Borders.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Sensory encoding and memory in the mushroom body: signals, noise, and variability.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2024Review
- Distinct information conveyed to the olfactory bulb by feedforward input from the nose and feedback from the cortex.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sparse coding can improve discrimination of sensory stimuli by reducing overlap between their representations. Two factors, however, can offset sparse coding's benefits: similar sensory stimuli have significant overlap and responses vary across trials. To elucidate the effects of these 2 factors, we analyzed odor responses in the fly and mouse olfactory regions implicated in learning and discrimination-the mushroom body (MB) and the piriform cortex (PCx). We found that neuronal responses fall along a continuum from extremely reliable across trials to extremely variable or stochastic. Computationally, we show that the observed variability arises from noise within central circuits rather than sensory noise. We propose this coding scheme to be advantageous for coarse- and fine-odor discrimination. More reliable cells enable quick discrimination between dissimilar odors. For similar odors, however, these cells overlap and do not provide distinguishing information. By contrast, more unreliable cells are decorrelated for similar odors, providing distinguishing information, though these benefits only accrue with extended training with more trials. Overall, we have uncovered a conserved, stochastic coding scheme in vertebrates and invertebrates, and we identify a candidate mechanism, based on variability in a winner-take-all (WTA) inhibitory circuit, that improves discrimination with training.
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.