IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1005150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Efficient Coding Strategies Depend on Origins of Noise in Neural Circuits?

Author

Listed:
  • Braden A W Brinkman
  • Alison I Weber
  • Fred Rieke
  • Eric Shea-Brown

Abstract

Neural circuits reliably encode and transmit signals despite the presence of noise at multiple stages of processing. The efficient coding hypothesis, a guiding principle in computational neuroscience, suggests that a neuron or population of neurons allocates its limited range of responses as efficiently as possible to best encode inputs while mitigating the effects of noise. Previous work on this question relies on specific assumptions about where noise enters a circuit, limiting the generality of the resulting conclusions. Here we systematically investigate how noise introduced at different stages of neural processing impacts optimal coding strategies. Using simulations and a flexible analytical approach, we show how these strategies depend on the strength of each noise source, revealing under what conditions the different noise sources have competing or complementary effects. We draw two primary conclusions: (1) differences in encoding strategies between sensory systems—or even adaptational changes in encoding properties within a given system—may be produced by changes in the structure or location of neural noise, and (2) characterization of both circuit nonlinearities as well as noise are necessary to evaluate whether a circuit is performing efficiently.Author Summary: For decades the efficient coding hypothesis has been a guiding principle in determining how neural systems can most efficiently represent their inputs. However, conclusions about whether neural circuits are performing optimally depend on assumptions about the noise sources encountered by neural signals as they are transmitted. Here, we provide a coherent picture of how optimal encoding strategies depend on noise strength, type, location, and correlations. Our results reveal that nonlinearities that are efficient if noise enters the circuit in one location may be inefficient if noise actually enters in a different location. This offers new explanations for why different sensory circuits, or even a given circuit under different environmental conditions, might have different encoding properties.

Suggested Citation

  • Braden A W Brinkman & Alison I Weber & Fred Rieke & Eric Shea-Brown, 2016. "How Do Efficient Coding Strategies Depend on Origins of Noise in Neural Circuits?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-34, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005150
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005150
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005150&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005150?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan W. Pillow & Jonathon Shlens & Liam Paninski & Alexander Sher & Alan M. Litke & E. J. Chichilnisky & Eero P. Simoncelli, 2008. "Spatio-temporal correlations and visual signalling in a complete neuronal population," Nature, Nature, vol. 454(7207), pages 995-999, August.
    2. Adrienne L. Fairhall & Geoffrey D. Lewen & William Bialek & Robert R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, 2001. "Efficiency and ambiguity in an adaptive neural code," Nature, Nature, vol. 412(6849), pages 787-792, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Rubin & Nachum Ulanovsky & Israel Nelken & Naftali Tishby, 2016. "The Representation of Prediction Error in Auditory Cortex," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-28, August.
    2. Richard Naud & Wulfram Gerstner, 2012. "Coding and Decoding with Adapting Neurons: A Population Approach to the Peri-Stimulus Time Histogram," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Skander Mensi & Olivier Hagens & Wulfram Gerstner & Christian Pozzorini, 2016. "Enhanced Sensitivity to Rapid Input Fluctuations by Nonlinear Threshold Dynamics in Neocortical Pyramidal Neurons," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, February.
    4. Arne F Meyer & Jan-Philipp Diepenbrock & Max F K Happel & Frank W Ohl & Jörn Anemüller, 2014. "Discriminative Learning of Receptive Fields from Responses to Non-Gaussian Stimulus Ensembles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Noga Mosheiff & Haggai Agmon & Avraham Moriel & Yoram Burak, 2017. "An efficient coding theory for a dynamic trajectory predicts non-uniform allocation of entorhinal grid cells to modules," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Franklin Leong & Babak Rahmani & Demetri Psaltis & Christophe Moser & Diego Ghezzi, 2024. "An actor-model framework for visual sensory encoding," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Lucas Rudelt & Daniel González Marx & Michael Wibral & Viola Priesemann, 2021. "Embedding optimization reveals long-lasting history dependence in neural spiking activity," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-51, June.
    8. Pengcheng Zhou & Shawn D Burton & Adam C Snyder & Matthew A Smith & Nathaniel N Urban & Robert E Kass, 2015. "Establishing a Statistical Link between Network Oscillations and Neural Synchrony," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, October.
    9. Corentin Massot & Adam D Schneider & Maurice J Chacron & Kathleen E Cullen, 2012. "The Vestibular System Implements a Linear–Nonlinear Transformation In Order to Encode Self-Motion," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    10. Kenneth W. Latimer & David J. Freedman, 2023. "Low-dimensional encoding of decisions in parietal cortex reflects long-term training history," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, December.
    11. Jason S Prentice & Olivier Marre & Mark L Ioffe & Adrianna R Loback & Gašper Tkačik & Michael J Berry II, 2016. "Error-Robust Modes of the Retinal Population Code," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-32, November.
    12. Yanyun Ren & Xiaobo Bu & Ming Wang & Yue Gong & Junjie Wang & Yuyang Yang & Guijun Li & Meng Zhang & Ye Zhou & Su-Ting Han, 2022. "Synaptic plasticity in self-powered artificial striate cortex for binocular orientation selectivity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Martinez-Saito, Mario, 2022. "Discrete scaling and criticality in a chain of adaptive excitable integrators," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    14. Jan Humplik & Gašper Tkačik, 2017. "Probabilistic models for neural populations that naturally capture global coupling and criticality," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-26, September.
    15. Urs Köster & Jascha Sohl-Dickstein & Charles M Gray & Bruno A Olshausen, 2014. "Modeling Higher-Order Correlations within Cortical Microcolumns," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    16. J. Gerard Wolff, 2019. "Information Compression as a Unifying Principle in Human Learning, Perception, and Cognition," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-38, February.
    17. Philip A. White & Alan E. Gelfand, 2021. "Generalized Evolutionary Point Processes: Model Specifications and Model Comparison," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1001-1021, September.
    18. Michael E Rule & David Schnoerr & Matthias H Hennig & Guido Sanguinetti, 2019. "Neural field models for latent state inference: Application to large-scale neuronal recordings," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-23, November.
    19. Martin J M Lankheet & P Christiaan Klink & Bart G Borghuis & André J Noest, 2012. "Spike-Interval Triggered Averaging Reveals a Quasi-Periodic Spiking Alternative for Stochastic Resonance in Catfish Electroreceptors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-11, March.
    20. Liangyu Tao & Samuel P. Wechsler & Vikas Bhandawat, 2023. "Sensorimotor transformation underlying odor-modulated locomotion in walking Drosophila," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.