Sparse input representations explain odor discrimination in complex, concentration-varying mixtures
McCalmon, H.; Cai, G.; Tsibouris, C.; Pashakhanloo, F.; Chung, S.; Kapoor, V.; Murthy, V. N.
Show abstract
In natural environments, animals must detect behaviorally relevant odors despite variability in both odor mixture composition and stimulus intensity. Although mice can identify salient odors embedded in complex mixtures, how target concentration and background complexity jointly constrain discrimination remains unclear. We trained mice in a two-alternative forced choice task to identify target odors embedded in mixtures containing up to 16 background components. After performance stabilized, we systematically varied target odor concentration. Discrimination accuracy declined with decreasing target concentration but showed little additional dependence on background complexity. Using a biophysically grounded model of olfactory bulb glomerular responses, we show that linear decoding reproduces behavioral performance when intrinsic neural noise dominates over background-driven variability. Manifold capacity analysis revealed that neural representations remain efficiently structured for odor discrimination despite variation in background complexity. These results define a noise-limited regime of olfactory discrimination in which target detectability is primarily constrained by neural sensitivity rather than background interference.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Dynamic representation of taste-related decisions in the gustatory insular cortex of mice 95%
- Non-preferred contrast responses in the Drosophila motion pathways reveal a receptive field structure that explains a common visual illusion 95%
- Serotonin neurons modulate learning rate through uncertainty 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.