ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Disentangling signal and noise in neural responses through generative modeling.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Triple-N dataset: large-scale fMRI-guided dense recordings of nonhuman primate neural responses to natural scenes.Nature neuroscience · 2026Article
- A 5.0 T Ultra-High-Field fMRI Dataset for Naturalistic Visual Scene Processing.Scientific data · 2026Article
- A two-dimensional space of linguistic representations shared across individuals.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A large-scale examination of inductive biases shaping high-level visual representation in brains and machines.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Contrastive learning explains the emergence and function of visual category-selective regions.Science advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measurements of neural responses to identically repeated experimental events often exhibit large amounts of variability. This noise is distinct from signal, operationally defined as the average expected response across repeated trials for each given event. Accurately distinguishing signal from noise is important, as each is a target that is worthy of study (many believe noise reflects important aspects of brain function) and it is important not to confuse one for the other. Here, we describe a principled modeling approach in which response measurements are explicitly modeled as the sum of samples from multivariate signal and noise distributions. In our proposed method-termed Generative Modeling of Signal and Noise (GSN)-the signal distribution is estimated by subtracting the estimated noise distribution from the estimated data distribution. Importantly, GSN improves estimates of the signal distribution, but does not provide improved estimates of responses to individual events. We validate GSN using ground-truth simulations and show that it compares favorably with related methods. We also demonstrate the application of GSN to empirical fMRI data to illustrate a simple consequence of GSN: by disentangling signal and noise components in neural responses, GSN denoises principal components analysis and improves estimates of dimensionality. We end by discussing other situations that may benefit from GSN's characterization of signal and noise, such as estimation of noise ceilings for computational models of neural activity. A code toolbox for GSN is provided with both MATLAB and Python implementations.
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.