Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42746280›Full record

ArticlePatterns (New York, N.Y.)2026

Sampling bias corrections for discrete and Gaussian partial information decompositions.

Gabriel Matías Lorenz, Nicola Marie Engel, Loren Koçillari, Marco Celotto, Davide Orsenigo, Sebastiano Curreli, Simone Blanco Malerba, Andreas K Engel, Christoph Kayser, Tommaso Fellin and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

12 authors.

Gabriel Matías LorenzInstitute for Neural Information Processing, Center for Molecular Neurobiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20251 Hamburg, Germany.
Nicola Marie EngelInstitute for Neural Information Processing, Center for Molecular Neurobiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20251 Hamburg, Germany.
Loren KoçillariInstitute for Neural Information Processing, Center for Molecular Neurobiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20251 Hamburg, Germany.
Marco CelottoInstitute for Neural Information Processing, Center for Molecular Neurobiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20251 Hamburg, Germany.
Davide OrsenigoDepartment of Psychology, University of Torino, 10124 Turin, Italy.
Sebastiano CurreliOptical Approaches to Brain Function Laboratory, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, 16163 Genova, Italy.
Simone Blanco MalerbaInstitute for Neural Information Processing, Center for Molecular Neurobiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20251 Hamburg, Germany.
Andreas K EngelDepartment of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
Christoph KayserDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Bielefeld University, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany.
Tommaso FellinOptical Approaches to Brain Function Laboratory, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, 16163 Genova, Italy.
Andrea I LuppiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Stefano PanzeriInstitute for Neural Information Processing, Center for Molecular Neurobiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20251 Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Partial information decomposition (PID) has emerged as a principled way to decompose the information carried by neural activity into components identifying whether interactions among neurons or brain areas generate synergistic or redundant information. Here, we demonstrate that empirical measures of synergy and redundancy based on either Gaussian or discrete probability estimators suffer from a substantial limited-sampling estimation bias. This bias is much larger for synergy than for redundancy. The gap between them increases with the number of parameters specifying the probability distributions. We develop procedures that effectively correct for the bias and provide rules of thumb for the sample sizes required to obtain unbiased estimates. We show that, when used on empirical brain datasets, they successfully remove large synergy biases across species, recording modalities, and experimental designs. Our bias corrections extend the range of neuroscience questions and experimental designs addressable with PID and allow accurate comparisons between synergy and redundancy.

Indexed as

brain communicationinformation theorylimited-sampling biasneural codingredundancysynergy

Identifiers

PMID42746280
PMCPMC13576656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.