Back

Shared and idiosyncratic coding regimes coexist in macaque IT

Lu, Q.; Xiong, X.; Li, Y.; Jiang, H.; Bao, P.; Tang, S.

2026-08-28 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.08.25.746485 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Population-level measurements portray object representations in primate inferotemporal cortex (IT) as smooth, low-dimensional, and predictable by deep neural networks (DNNs). However, it remains unclear whether this structured population-level picture is representative of the full diversity of its constituent neurons. Here, we used Neuropixels 2.0 probes to record large populations of well-isolated units from an fMRI-localized face patch in macaque anterior IT while monkeys viewed more than 3,000 natural images. Single-unit responses were substantially sparser and more heterogeneous than multi-unit activity (MUA). Sparse neurons collectively formed a higher-dimensional code, supported efficient image identification, and responded later than broadly tuned neurons. Partly independently of sparseness, some neurons exhibited reliable feature randomness: their stimulus preferences were reproducible across repeated presentations but discontinuous across DNN feature spaces, rather than reflecting trial-to-trial response variability or noise. These neurons were virtually uncorrelated with the surrounding population despite being located within the same face patch. By contrast, MUA responses were denser, more correlated, lower-dimensional, and better predicted by DNNs. Together, these findings suggest a dual coding architecture in anterior IT: shared low-dimensional structure supports category generalization, whereas sparse and reliably feature-random single-neuron responses expand the representational space and support efficient identification of individual visual inputs. Response sparseness and reliable feature randomness may therefore constitute fundamental computational resources for object recognition.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.