ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2024
Response sub-additivity and variability quenching in visual cortex.
Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- The human language processing system straightens natural speech.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The time-intensity uncertainty principle in vision.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Size tuning of neural response variability in laminar circuits of macaque primary visual cortex.eLife · 2026Article
- Interleaving asynchronous and synchronous activity in balanced cortical networks with short term synaptic depression.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Computational and Neuronal Basis of Visual Confidence.Annual review of vision science · 2025Review
- Relating natural image statistics to patterns of response covariability in macaque primary visual cortex.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Sensory population activity reveals downstream confidence computations in the primate visual system.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Article
- Theory of interaction between untuned modulatory inputs and tuned sensory inputs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Feature-specific divisive normalization improves natural image encoding for depth perception.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Signal switching may enhance processing power of the brain.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024Review
- How does V1 population activity inform perceptual certainty?Journal of vision · 2024Article
- An open platform for visual stimulation of insects.PloS one · 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.
Funding
Abstract
Sub-additivity and variability are ubiquitous response motifs in the primary visual cortex (V1). Response sub-additivity enables the construction of useful interpretations of the visual environment, whereas response variability indicates the factors that limit the precision with which the brain can do this. There is increasing evidence that experimental manipulations that elicit response sub-additivity often also quench response variability. Here, we provide an overview of these phenomena and suggest that they may have common origins. We discuss empirical findings and recent model-based insights into the functional operations, computational objectives and circuit mechanisms underlying V1 activity. These different modelling approaches all predict that response sub-additivity and variability quenching often co-occur. The phenomenology of these two response motifs, as well as many of the insights obtained about them in V1, generalize to other cortical areas. Thus, the connection between response sub-additivity and variability quenching may be a canonical motif across the cortex.
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.