ArticleNeuroinformatics2026
Estimating Mutual Information and Pearson Correlation on Neural Evoked Responses.
Article in Neuroinformatics, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In neural evoked responses, small variations in the timing or duration of responses can be observed when the same functional response is recorded in different trials, different experimental conditions or by different sensors. These variations limit the ability of correlation-based methods to detect similarities between signals. Mutual information (MI) provides an alternative similarity measure, capable of capturing both linear and non-linear dependencies, yet its practical use is hindered by lack of consensus on estimators for continuous data and the limited understanding of the behavior of the estimators on realistic signals. In this work, we investigate how to estimate the similarity of neural evoked responses by systematically comparing sample Pearson correlation with three of the most common MI estimators. We describe their behavior using both simulated signals and real magnetoencephalographic data. In the simulations, the estimators are tested against a set of transformations that depict realistic changes in neural evoked responses. Subsequently, we propose guidelines for defining adaptive lower bounds on the similarity estimates and analyzing the similarity rankings induced by the different estimators. Our findings reveal trade-offs between measures sensitivity and different signal properties. We confirm that Pearson correlation is reliable in describing linear relationships for low-noise signals, and we identify parameter settings that stabilize MI estimators, enabling them to capture complex signal dependencies. Together, these results introduce practical parameter choices and thresholding strategies for mutual information and provide guidance for selecting and interpreting similarity measures in the analysis of neural evoked time series.
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.