ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Probabilistic neural transfer function estimation with Bayesian system identification.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Inhibition benefits neural system identification.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Neural population responses in sensory systems are driven by external physical stimuli. This stimulus-response relationship is typically characterized by receptive fields, which have been estimated by neural system identification approaches. Such models usually require a large amount of training data, yet, the recording time for animal experiments is limited, giving rise to epistemic uncertainty for the learned neural transfer functions. While deep neural network models have demonstrated excellent power on neural prediction, they usually do not provide the uncertainty of the resulting neural representations and derived statistics, such as most exciting inputs (MEIs), from in silico experiments. Here, we present a Bayesian system identification approach to predict neural responses to visual stimuli, and explore whether explicitly modeling network weight variability can be beneficial for identifying neural response properties. To this end, we use variational inference to estimate the posterior distribution of each model weight given the training data. Tests with different neural datasets demonstrate that this method can achieve higher or comparable performance on neural prediction, with a much higher data efficiency compared to Monte Carlo dropout methods and traditional models using point estimates of the model parameters. At the same time, our variational method provides us with an effectively infinite ensemble, avoiding the idiosyncrasy of any single model, to generate MEIs. This allows us to estimate the uncertainty of stimulus-response function, which we have found to be negatively correlated with the predictive performance at model level and may serve to evaluate models. Furthermore, our approach enables us to identify response properties with credible intervals and to determine whether the inferred features are meaningful by performing statistical tests on MEIs. Finally, in silico experiments show that our model generates stimuli driving neuronal activity significantly better than traditional models in the limited-data regime.
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.