IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1005497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robust information propagation through noisy neural circuits

Author

Listed:
  • Joel Zylberberg
  • Alexandre Pouget
  • Peter E Latham
  • Eric Shea-Brown

Abstract

Sensory neurons give highly variable responses to stimulation, which can limit the amount of stimulus information available to downstream circuits. Much work has investigated the factors that affect the amount of information encoded in these population responses, leading to insights about the role of covariability among neurons, tuning curve shape, etc. However, the informativeness of neural responses is not the only relevant feature of population codes; of potentially equal importance is how robustly that information propagates to downstream structures. For instance, to quantify the retina’s performance, one must consider not only the informativeness of the optic nerve responses, but also the amount of information that survives the spike-generating nonlinearity and noise corruption in the next stage of processing, the lateral geniculate nucleus. Our study identifies the set of covariance structures for the upstream cells that optimize the ability of information to propagate through noisy, nonlinear circuits. Within this optimal family are covariances with “differential correlations”, which are known to reduce the information encoded in neural population activities. Thus, covariance structures that maximize information in neural population codes, and those that maximize the ability of this information to propagate, can be very different. Moreover, redundancy is neither necessary nor sufficient to make population codes robust against corruption by noise: redundant codes can be very fragile, and synergistic codes can—in some cases—optimize robustness against noise.Author summary: Information about the outside world, which originates in sensory neurons, propagates through multiple stages of processing before reaching the neural structures that control behavior. While much work in neuroscience has investigated the factors that affect the amount of information contained in peripheral sensory areas, very little work has asked how much of that information makes it through subsequent processing stages. That’s the focus of this paper, and it’s an important issue because information that fails to propagate cannot be used to affect decision-making. We find a tradeoff between information content and information transmission: neural codes which contain a large amount of information can transmit that information poorly to subsequent processing stages. Thus, the problem of robust information propagation—which has largely been overlooked in previous research—may be critical for determining how our sensory organs communicate with our brains. We identify the conditions under which information propagates well—or poorly—through multiple stages of neural processing.

Suggested Citation

  • Joel Zylberberg & Alexandre Pouget & Peter E Latham & Eric Shea-Brown, 2017. "Robust information propagation through noisy neural circuits," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-35, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005497
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005497
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005497&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005497?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. Rava Azeredo da Silveira & Michael J Berry II, 2014. "High-Fidelity Coding with Correlated Neurons," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joseph A Lombardo & Matthew V Macellaio & Bing Liu & Stephanie E Palmer & Leslie C Osborne, 2018. "State dependence of stimulus-induced variability tuning in macaque MT," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-28, October.

    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. Mark L Ioffe & Michael J Berry II, 2017. "The structured ‘low temperature’ phase of the retinal population code," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-31, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Takuya Ito & Scott L Brincat & Markus Siegel & Ravi D Mill & Biyu J He & Earl K Miller & Horacio G Rotstein & Michael W Cole, 2020. "Task-evoked activity quenches neural correlations and variability across cortical areas," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-39, August.
    4. Vikranth R Bejjanki & Rava Azeredo da Silveira & Jonathan D Cohen & Nicholas B Turk-Browne, 2017. "Noise correlations in the human brain and their impact on pattern classification," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-23, August.
    5. Volker Pernice & Rava Azeredo da Silveira, 2018. "Interpretation of correlated neural variability from models of feed-forward and recurrent circuits," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-26, February.
    6. Andrea K Barreiro & Cheng Ly, 2017. "When do correlations increase with firing rates in recurrent networks?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-30, April.

    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:pcbi00:1005497. 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.