ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Noise correlations and neuronal diversity may limit the utility of winner-take-all readout in a pop out visual search task.
Article in PLoS computational 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visual search involves active scanning of the environment to locate objects of interest against a background of irrelevant distractors. One widely accepted theory posits that pop out visual search is computed by a winner-take-all (WTA) competition between contextually modulated cells that form a saliency map. However, previous studies have shown that the ability of WTA mechanisms to accumulate information from large populations of neurons is limited, thus raising the question of whether WTA can underlie pop out visual search. To address this question, we conducted a modeling study to investigate how accurately the WTA mechanism can detect the deviant stimulus in a pop out task. We analyzed two types of WTA readout mechanisms: single-best-cell WTA, where the decision is made based on a single winning cell, and a generalized population-based WTA, where the decision is based on the winning population of similarly tuned cells. Our results show that neither WTA mechanism can account for the high accuracy found in behavioral experiments. The inherent neuronal heterogeneity prevents the single-best-cell WTA from accumulating information even from large populations, whereas the accuracy of the generalized population-based WTA algorithm is negatively affected by the widely reported noise correlations. These findings underscore the need to revisit the key assumptions explored in our theoretical analysis, particularly concerning the decoding mechanism and the statistical properties of neuronal population responses to pop out stimuli. The analysis identifies specific response statistics that require further empirical characterization to accurately predict WTA performance in biologically plausible models of visual pop out detection.
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.