Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40608811›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2025

Cooperative coding of continuous variables in networks with sparsity constraint.

Paul Züge, Natalie Schieferstein, Raoul-Martin Memmesheimer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Paul ZügeInstitute for Genetics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0022-7542
Natalie SchiefersteinInstitute for Genetics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Raoul-Martin MemmesheimerInstitute for Genetics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4273-2731

Funding

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBFMinistry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-WestphaliaOpen Access Publication Fund of the University of Bonn
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A hallmark of biological and artificial neural networks is that neurons tile the range of continuous sensory inputs and intrinsic variables with overlapping responses. It is characteristic for the underlying recurrent connectivity in the cortex that neurons with similar tuning predominantly excite each other. The reason for such an architecture is not clear. Using an analytically tractable model as well as spiking neural networks, we show that it can naturally arise from a cooperative coding scheme. In this scheme neurons with similar responses specifically support each other by sharing their computations to obtain the desired population code. This sharing allows each neuron to effectively respond to a broad variety of inputs, while only receiving few feedforward and recurrent connections. Few strong, specific recurrent connections then replace many feedforward and less specific recurrent connections, such that the resulting connectivity optimizes the number of required synapses. This suggests that the number of required synapses may be a crucial constraining factor in biological neural networks. Synaptic savings increase with the dimensionality of the encoded variables. We find a trade-off between saving synapses and response speed. The response speed improves by orders of magnitude when utilizing the window of opportunity between excitatory and delayed inhibitory currents that arises if, as found in experiments, spike frequency adaptation is present or strong recurrent excitation is balanced by strong, shortly-lagged inhibition.

Indexed as

BrainModels, NeurologicalNerve NetNeuronsAnimalsComputer SimulationHumansSynapses

Identifiers

PMID40608811
PMCPMC12407556

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.