Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38394341›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Shared input and recurrency in neural networks for metabolically efficient information transmission.

Tomas Barta, Lubomir Kostal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. 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. Review
  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

2 authors.

Tomas BartaLaboratory of Computational Neuroscience, Institute of Physiology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-0467-3240
Lubomir KostalLaboratory of Computational Neuroscience, Institute of Physiology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-2708-6268

Funding

Charles UniversityStrategy AV 21 Programme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shared input to a population of neurons induces noise correlations, which can decrease the information carried by a population activity. Inhibitory feedback in recurrent neural networks can reduce the noise correlations and thus increase the information carried by the population activity. However, the activity of inhibitory neurons is costly. This inhibitory feedback decreases the gain of the population. Thus, depolarization of its neurons requires stronger excitatory synaptic input, which is associated with higher ATP consumption. Given that the goal of neural populations is to transmit as much information as possible at minimal metabolic costs, it is unclear whether the increased information transmission reliability provided by inhibitory feedback compensates for the additional costs. We analyze this problem in a network of leaky integrate-and-fire neurons receiving correlated input. By maximizing mutual information with metabolic cost constraints, we show that there is an optimal strength of recurrent connections in the network, which maximizes the value of mutual information-per-cost. For higher values of input correlation, the mutual information-per-cost is higher for recurrent networks with inhibitory feedback compared to feedforward networks without any inhibitory neurons. Our results, therefore, show that the optimal synaptic strength of a recurrent network can be inferred from metabolically efficient coding arguments and that decorrelation of the input by inhibitory feedback compensates for the associated increased metabolic costs.

Indexed as

Nerve NetSynaptic TransmissionAction PotentialsComputer SimulationModels, NeurologicalNeural InhibitionNeural Networks, ComputerReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID38394341
PMCPMC10917264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.