Skip to main content
Log in

Neural Population Structures and Consequences for Neural Coding

  • Published:
Journal of Computational Neuroscience Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Researchers studying neural coding have speculated that populations of neurons would more effectively represent the stimulus if the neurons “cooperated:” by interacting through lateral connections, the neurons would process and represent information better than if they functioned independently. We apply our new theory of information processing to determine the fidelity limits of simple population structures to encode stimulus features. We focus on noncooperative populations, which have no lateral connections. We show that they always exhibit positively correlated responses and that as population size increases, they perfectly represent the information conveyed by their inputs regardless of the individual neuron's coding scheme. Cooperative populations, which do have lateral connections, can, depending on the nature of the connections, perform better or worse than their noncooperative counterparts. We further show that common notions of synergy fail to capture the level of cooperation and to reflect the information processing properties of populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott L, Dayan P (1999) The effect of correlated variability on the accuracy of a population code. Neural Comput. 11: 91-101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso J-M, Usrey W, Reid R (1996) Precisely correlated firing in cells of the lateral geniculate nucleus. Nature 383: 815-818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger T (1971) Rate Distortion Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezzi M, Diamond M, Treves A (2001) Redundancy and synergy arising from correlations in large ensembles. arXiv:cond-mat 0012119.

  • Cover T, Thomas J (1991) Elements of Information Theory. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • deCharms R, Merzenich M (1996) Primary cortical representation of sounds by the coordination of action-potential timing. Nature 381: 610-613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D (2002) For top reasons why mutual information does not quantify neural information processing. In Computational Neuroscience' 02, Chicago, IL.

  • Johnson D, Gruner C, Baggerly K, Seshagiri C (2001) Informationtheoretic analysis of neural coding. J. Comp. Neurosci. 10: 47-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D, Gruner C, Glantz R (2000) Quantifying information transfer in spike generation. Neurocomputing 33: 1047-1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D, Ray W (2004) Optimal stimulus coding by neural populations using rate codes. J. Comp. Neurosci., to appear.

  • Kang K, Sompolinksy H (2001) Mutual information of population codes and distance measures in probability space. Phys. Rev. Letters 86: 4958-4961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgard M, Merzenich M (1999) Distributed representation of spectral and temporal information in rat primary auditory cortex. Hearing Res. 134: 16-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolmogorov A (1956) On the Shannon theory of information transmission in the case of continuous signals. IRE Trans. Info. Th. 3: 102-108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nirenberg S, Carcieri S, Jacobs A, Latham P (2001) Retinal ganglion cells act largely as independent encoders. Nature 411: 698-701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich D, Mechler F, Victor J (2001) Independent and redundant information in nearby cortical neurons. Science 294: 2566-2568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozell C, Johnson D, Glantz R (2002) Information processing during transient responses in the crayfish visual system. In Computational Neuroscience'02 Chicago, IL.

  • Shamir M, Sompolinsky H (2001) Correlation codes in neuronal populations. In T. Dietterich, S. Becker, and Z. Ghahramani, eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Vol. 14, pp. 277-284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon C (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Tech. J. 379-423, 623-656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinanovi´c S, Johnson D (2004) Toward a theory of information processing, in preparation.

  • Strong S, Koberle R, de Ruyter van Steveninck R, Bialek W (1998) Entropy and information in neural spike trains. Phys. Rev. Letters 80: 197-200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tishby N, Pereira F, Bialek W (1999) The information bottleneck method. In Proc. 37th Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing, pp. 368-377.

  • Warland D, Reinagel P, Meister M (1997) Decoding visual information from a population of retinal ganglion cells. J. Neurophysiol. 78: 2336-2350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilke S, Eurich C (2002) Representational accuracy of stochastic neural populations. Neural Comput. 14: 155-189.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, D.H. Neural Population Structures and Consequences for Neural Coding. J Comput Neurosci 16, 69–80 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCNS.0000004842.04535.7c

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCNS.0000004842.04535.7c

Navigation