Back

Characterizing neural coding performance for populations of sensory neurons: comparing a weighted spike distance metrics to other analytical methods.

Marsat, G.

2019-09-23 neuroscience
10.1101/778514 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The identity of sensory stimuli is encoded in the spatio-temporal patterns of responses of the encoding neural population. For stimuli to be discriminated reliably, differences in population responses must be accurately decoded by downstream networks. Several methods to compare patterns of responses have been used by neurophysiologists to characterize the accuracy of the sensory responses studied. Among the most widely used analysis, we note methods based on Euclidean distances or on spike metric distances. Methods based on artificial neural networks and machine learning that recognize and/or classify specific input patterns have also gained popularity. Here, we first compare these three strategies using datasets from three different model systems: the moth olfactory system, the electrosensory system of gymnotids, and leaky-integrate- and-fire (LIF) model responses. We show that the input-weighting procedure inherent to artificial neural networks allows the efficient extraction of information relevant to stimulus discrimination. To combine the convenience of methods such as spike metric distances but leverage the advantages of weighting the inputs, we propose a measure based on geometric distances where each dimension is weighted proportionally to how informative it is. We show that the result of this Weighted Euclidian Distance (WED) analysis performs as well or better than the artificial neural network we tested and outperforms the more traditional spike distance metrics. We applied information theoretic analysis to LIF responses and compare their encoding accuracy with the discrimination accuracy quantified through this WED analysis. We show a high degree of correlation between discrimination accuracy and information content and that our weighting procedure allowed the efficient use of information present to perform the discrimination task. We argue that our proposed measure provides the flexibility and ease of use sought by neurophysiologists while providing a more powerful way to extract relevant information than more traditional methods.

Published in Frontiers in Neuroscience (predicted rank #8) · training set

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.