ReviewFrontiers in computational neuroscience2024
Time-varying generalized linear models: characterizing and decoding neuronal dynamics in higher visual areas.
Review in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Limits of V4 perisaccadic firing rate modulations in explaining perceptual mislocalization.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A population readout of extrastriate activity reveals biased and smoothed temporal representations across saccades.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Neurodatascience: Past, Present, and Future.Data science in science · 2026Article
- Blind identification of state transitions and latent neural dynamics from electrophysiological recordings.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2026Article
- Identification of modulated whole-brain dynamical models from nonstationary electrophysiological data.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Article
- Neural correlates of perisaccadic visual mislocalization in extrastriate 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To create a behaviorally relevant representation of the visual world, neurons in higher visual areas exhibit dynamic response changes to account for the time-varying interactions between external (e.g., visual input) and internal (e.g., reward value) factors. The resulting high-dimensional representational space poses challenges for precisely quantifying individual factors' contributions to the representation and readout of sensory information during a behavior. The widely used point process generalized linear model (GLM) approach provides a powerful framework for a quantitative description of neuronal processing as a function of various sensory and non-sensory inputs (encoding) as well as linking particular response components to particular behaviors (decoding), at the level of single trials and individual neurons. However, most existing variations of GLMs assume the neural systems to be time-invariant, making them inadequate for modeling nonstationary characteristics of neuronal sensitivity in higher visual areas. In this review, we summarize some of the existing GLM variations, with a focus on time-varying extensions. We highlight their applications to understanding neural representations in higher visual areas and decoding transient neuronal sensitivity as well as linking physiology to behavior through manipulation of model components. This time-varying class of statistical models provide valuable insights into the neural basis of various visual behaviors in higher visual areas and hold significant potential for uncovering the fundamental computational principles that govern neuronal processing underlying various behaviors in different regions of the brain.
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.