IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1007065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Surprise response as a probe for compressed memory states

Author

Listed:
  • Hadar Levi-Aharoni
  • Oren Shriki
  • Naftali Tishby

Abstract

The limited capacity of recent memory inevitably leads to partial memory of past stimuli. There is also evidence that behavioral and neural responses to novel or rare stimuli are dependent on one’s memory of past stimuli. Thus, these responses may serve as a probe of different individuals’ remembering and forgetting characteristics. Here, we utilize two lossy compression models of stimulus sequences that inherently involve forgetting, which in addition to being a necessity under many conditions, also has theoretical and behavioral advantages. One model is based on a simple stimulus counter and the other on the Information Bottleneck (IB) framework which suggests a more general, theoretically justifiable principle for biological and cognitive phenomena. These models are applied to analyze a novelty-detection event-related potential commonly known as the P300. The trial-by-trial variations of the P300 response, recorded in an auditory oddball paradigm, were subjected to each model to extract two stimulus-compression parameters for each subject: memory length and representation accuracy. These parameters were then utilized to estimate the subjects’ recent memory capacity limit under the task conditions. The results, along with recently published findings on single neurons and the IB model, underscore how a lossy compression framework can be utilized to account for trial-by-trial variability of neural responses at different spatial scales and in different individuals, while at the same time providing estimates of individual memory characteristics at different levels of representation using a theoretically-based parsimonious model.Author summary: Surprise responses reflect expectations based on preceding stimuli representations, and hence can be used to infer the characteristics of memory utilized for a task. We suggest a quantitative method for extracting an individual estimate of effective memory capacity dedicated for a task based on the correspondence between a theoretical surprise model and electrophysiological single-trial surprise responses. We demonstrate this method on EEG responses recorded while participants were performing a simple auditory task; we show the correspondence between the theoretical and physiological surprise, and calculate an estimate of the utilized memory. The generality of this framework allows it to be applied to different EEG features that reflect different modes and levels of the processing hierarchy, as well as other physiological measures of surprise responses. Future studies may use this framework to construct a handy diagnostic tool for a quantitative, individualized characterization of memory-related disorders.

Suggested Citation

  • Hadar Levi-Aharoni & Oren Shriki & Naftali Tishby, 2020. "Surprise response as a probe for compressed memory states," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007065
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007065
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007065&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007065?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. Gagan Narula & Joshua A. Herbst & Joerg Rychen & Richard H. R. Hahnloser, 2018. "Learning auditory discriminations from observation is efficient but less robust than learning from experience," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Sid Kouider & Bria Long & Lorna Le Stanc & Sylvain Charron & Anne-Caroline Fievet & Leonardo S. Barbosa & Sofie V. Gelskov, 2015. "Neural dynamics of prediction and surprise in infants," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, December.
    3. Niels Chr Hansen & Peter Vuust & Marcus Pearce, 2016. ""If You Have to Ask, You'll Never Know": Effects of Specialised Stylistic Expertise on Predictive Processing of Music," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Rik van Dinteren & Martijn Arns & Marijtje L A Jongsma & Roy P C Kessels, 2014. "P300 Development across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-13, February.
    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. Niels Chr Hansen & Lindsey Reymore, 2021. "Articulatory motor planning and timbral idiosyncrasies as underlying mechanisms of instrument-specific absolute pitch in expert musicians," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Agustin Lage-Castellanos & Giancarlo Valente & Elia Formisano & Federico De Martino, 2019. "Methods for computing the maximum performance of computational models of fMRI responses," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-25, March.
    3. Sam Gijsen & Miro Grundei & Robert T Lange & Dirk Ostwald & Felix Blankenburg, 2021. "Neural surprise in somatosensory Bayesian learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-36, February.
    4. Nihaad Paraouty & Justin D. Yao & Léo Varnet & Chi-Ning Chou & SueYeon Chung & Dan H. Sanes, 2023. "Sensory cortex plasticity supports auditory social learning," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, 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:pcbi00:1007065. 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.