ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Linking neural population formatting to function.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animals capable of complex behaviors tend to have more distinct brain areas than simpler organisms, and artificial networks that perform many tasks tend to self-organize into modules (1-3). This suggests that different brain areas serve distinct functions supporting complex behavior. However, a common observation is that essentially anything that an animal senses, knows, or does can be decoded from neural activity in any brain area (4-6). If everything is everywhere, why have distinct areas? Here we show that the function of a brain area is more related to how different types of information are combined (formatted) in neural representations than merely whether that information is present. We compared two brain areas: the middle temporal area (MT), which is important for visual motion perception (7, 8), and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), which is linked to decision-making and reward expectation (9, 10)). When monkeys based decisions on a combination of motion and reward information, both types of information were present in both areas. However, they were formatted differently: in MT, they were encoded separably, while in dlPFC, they were represented jointly in ways that reflected the monkeys' decision-making. A recurrent neural network (RNN) model that mirrored the information formatting in MT and dlPFC predicted that manipulating activity in these areas would differently affect decision-making. Consistent with model predictions, electrically stimulating MT biased choices midway between the visual motion stimulus and the preferred direction of the stimulated units (11), while stimulating dlPFC produced 'winner-take-all' decisions that sometimes reflected the visual motion stimulus and sometimes reflected the preference of the stimulated units, but never in between. These results are consistent with the tantalizing possibility that a modular structure enables complex behavior by flexibly reformatting information to accomplish behavioral goals.
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.