ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2026
Resolving non-identifiability mitigates systematic errors in simultaneous models of neural tuning and functional coupling.
Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A key component to understanding the brain is determining the influence of groups of neurons on each other relative to other influences. In the brain, all neurons are driven by the activity of other neurons, some of which may be simultaneously recorded, but most are not. As such, models of neuronal activity need to account for simultaneously recorded neurons and the influences of unmeasured neurons. This can be done through the inclusion of model terms for observed external variables (e.g., tuning to stimuli), observed internal variables (e.g., coupling to recorded neural activities), as well as terms for latent sources of variability. Despite broad utilization, however, evaluation of systematic errors during inference is rarely performed, and sources of systematic error are poorly understood. Through extensive numerical study and analytic calculation, we show that common inference procedures for static and dynamic models typically have systematic errors. Counter to common intuition, we found that model non-identifiability contributes to systematic errors in parameter estimation, not variance inflation, making it a particularly insidious form of statistical error. We demonstrate that accurate parameter selection before estimation resolves model non-identifiability and mitigates the associated systematic errors. In diverse neurophysiology data sets (multiple single unit recordings in primary visual cortex and hippocampus, ECoG from primary auditory cortex), we found that common methods typically overestimate the contributions of interactions between neurons, while the influence of exogenous variables is underestimated. Essentially, when there are positive correlations due to unobserved shared variability, estimated coupling amongst neurons will be inflated at the expense of tuning. We explain heterogeneity in observed systematic errors across neurophysiology data sets in terms of data statistics and experimental design. Together, our results identify the causes of statistical errors in structural equation models of simultaneous systems with endogenous, exogenous, and latent variables, provide inference procedures to mitigate those errors, and reveal and explain the impact of those errors in diverse neural data sets.
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.