Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39475902›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Learning probability distributions of sensory inputs with Monte Carlo predictive coding.

Gaspard Oliviers, Rafal Bogacz, Alexander Meulemans

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Gaspard OliviersMRC Brain Network Dynamics Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0004-6752-8296
Rafal BogaczMRC Brain Network Dynamics Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Alexander MeulemansDepartment of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Funding

Medical Research Council UK MC_UU_00003/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been suggested that the brain employs probabilistic generative models to optimally interpret sensory information. This hypothesis has been formalised in distinct frameworks, focusing on explaining separate phenomena. On one hand, classic predictive coding theory proposed how the probabilistic models can be learned by networks of neurons employing local synaptic plasticity. On the other hand, neural sampling theories have demonstrated how stochastic dynamics enable neural circuits to represent the posterior distributions of latent states of the environment. These frameworks were brought together by variational filtering that introduced neural sampling to predictive coding. Here, we consider a variant of variational filtering for static inputs, to which we refer as Monte Carlo predictive coding (MCPC). We demonstrate that the integration of predictive coding with neural sampling results in a neural network that learns precise generative models using local computation and plasticity. The neural dynamics of MCPC infer the posterior distributions of the latent states in the presence of sensory inputs, and can generate likely inputs in their absence. Furthermore, MCPC captures the experimental observations on the variability of neural activity during perceptual tasks. By combining predictive coding and neural sampling, MCPC can account for both sets of neural data that previously had been explained by these individual frameworks.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyModels, NeurologicalMonte Carlo MethodNeuronal PlasticityAnimalsBrainComputer SimulationHumansLearningModels, StatisticalNerve NetNeural Networks, ComputerNeuronsProbability

Identifiers

PMID39475902
PMCPMC11524488

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.