standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 5 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | how associative learning changes the pattern of correlations between neurons, and what that does to population coding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | whether learning acts on emergent population properties that cannot be observed in single neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | shows learning inverts the relationship between signal and noise correlations, but only for stimuli that guide behaviour, and that this improves population decoding increasingly with population size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | inter-neuronal noise correlations in population coding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | positively correlated noise between similarly tuned neurons impairs coding because pooling cannot remove shared noise without removing signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | positively correlated noise between oppositely tuned neurons improves coding because subtraction removes noise and strengthens signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | trial shuffling separates the contribution of single-neuron plasticity from that of correlation change, since it leaves individual responses untouched Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the design equalises reward across all trained motifs so only the stimulus-response association differs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | testing each motif in isolation confirms the behavioural asymmetry is about which response the motif signals, not about reward Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The narrow-spiking (putative interneuron) sample was too small for reliable pair analysis, so the population results rest on wide-spiking pairs only. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every pairwise-correlation result: WE FOCUS ON WS NEURONS ... BECAUSE OUR SAMPLE OF NS NEURONS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT (N = 17 PAIRS FROM 36 SINGLE NEURONS) TO PERFORM RELIABLE ANALYSIS | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The claim that correlation-structure plasticity is confined to putative excitatory neurons is underpowered. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the cell-type specificity claim specifically: THIS SUGGESTS THAT THE PLASTICITY ... PRIMARILY EXISTS WITHIN WS (PUTATIVE EXCITATORY) NEURONS, ALTHOUGH MORE DATA ARE NECESSARY - the negative half rests on the underpowered sample | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Recordings were made under urethane anaesthesia, unlike the awake comparison study, and the circuitry producing the stimulus-specific flexibility is not identified. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the comparison with the awake primate study: A METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR STUDY AND THAT OF (GU, ET. AL. 2011) IS THAT WE USED ANESTHETIZED ANIMALS WHILE GU AND COLLEAGUES USED AWAKE ANIMALS | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The local or extrinsic circuit mechanism controlling the correlation structure remains to be established. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any circuit account of the effect: FURTHER EXPERIMENTS WILL BE NECESSARY TO ELUCIDATE THE CIRCUITRY THAT YIELDS THIS STIMULUS-SPECIFIC FLEXIBILITY | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | narrow-spiking neurons were excluded because the sample was too small for reliable analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[0] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - narrow-spiking neurons were excluded because the sample was too small for reliable analysis, so the population results are the broad-spiking ones | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | recordings were made under urethane anaesthesia, unlike the study whose result this contradicts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2], with the authors' position: WE THINK IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT ANESTHESIA COULD ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OUR RESULTS FOR TWO REASONS | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the single-neuron firing rate difference is modest relative to the behavioural change it accompanies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any single-neuron reading of the learning effect: THE MODULATION OF SINGLE NEURON FIRING RATES IS SUBTLE ... ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE ANIMALS' ROBUST CHANGES IN BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the effect in pairs of neurons is described as modest, and only grows large in bigger populations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the size of the correlation effect at the scale it was measured: A MODEST EFFECT IN PAIRS OF NEURONS GROWS CONSIDERABLY WITH POPULATION SIZE, and for irrelevant motifs the effect IS SMALL AND DOES NOT DEPEND ON POPULATION SIZE | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the comparison with the contradicting study differs in species, brain region, sensory modality and type of learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the disagreement with the primate study, whose differing parameters are enumerated: THIS STUDY DIFFERED FROM OURS IN MULTIPLE WAYS (E.G. SPECIES, BRAIN REGION, AND SENSORY MODALITY) and type of learning | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the concept of 'occasion setting' is imported to reinterpret the CLM motif representation as a predictive mapping onto the learned response rather than a sensory trace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | occasion setting - the idea that a stimulus signals which response is appropriate rather than predicting reward itself - used to reinterpret what the cortical representation is for Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | multinomial logistic regression, chosen because stimulus identity is categorical and cannot be parameterised Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the trial-shuffling repeated 50 times, with the AVERAGE classification probability used rather than a single shuffle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: correlations introduced by the shuffle itself - one shuffle can create spurious structure, so a single shuffled baseline could be beaten or missed by chance · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | CLM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: CLM | concepts[6] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| senses | noise correlation is shared trial-to-trial variability; signal correlation is tuning similarity - and the coding consequence of the first depends entirely on the sign of the second Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | task-relevant means the motif signalled which response was correct; task-irrelevant motifs were equally familiar and equally rewarded, so relevance here is purely a stimulus-response association Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the classification ratio is defined so that above one means correlations help and below one means they hurt, making the sign of the effect readable directly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the CLM representation is interpreted as a predictive mapping of the learned response rather than a sensory trace - occasion setting rather than encoding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: mechanism — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: two-alternative operant training on song motifs, then simultaneous recording of up to 8 neurons and multinomial logistic regression decoding with and without trial shuffling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: learning-dependent plasticity of inter-neuronal correlation structure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: inter-neuronal noise correlations in population coding — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Oram et al. (1998) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Cohen and Kohn (2011); Gu et al. (2011); Kohn and Smith (2005); Zohary et al. (1994) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Jeanne et al. (2011); Gentner and Margoliash (2003); Thompson and Gentner (2010) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the inference from earlier work that stimulus-reward association drives auditory cortical plasticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS TASK RELEVANCE OF THE STIMULUS. 'ONLY THE TASK-RELEVANT motifs - those that birds learned to associate with a particular pecking location - elicited neural population activity with a NEGATIVE relationship between signal and noise correlations. In contrast, task-irrelevant motifs ... elicited neural population activity' [with the opposite sign]. The sign of the correlation relationship depends on learned relevance, so a claim about signal-noise correlations is only well-formed once the stimulus class is stated. | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | confirms → the theoretical prediction that changing the sign of the signal-noise correlation relationship could underlie attention or learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → Gu et al., who found perceptual learning did not alter the slope of this relationship Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → theoretical work showing correlations help when signal and noise correlations have opposite sign Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | noise correlation —contrasted-with→ signal correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS DETERMINES THE SIGN OF THE EFFECT, NOT ITS SIZE. 'noise correlations can either enhance or impair coding fidelity, depending on how the noise correlation relates to tuning similarity (KNOWN AS SIGNAL CORRELATION) for each pair of neurons.' A claim that noise correlations help or hurt is not well-formed until this relation is stated - so two papers reporting opposite effects can both be right, and a join on 'noise correlation' alone would make them contradict. · strength of the relation: 1 · note: SIGN: correlated noise IMPAIRS coding between similarly tuned neurons and IMPROVES it between oppositely tuned ones. the same edge has opposite consequences depending on the second variable also in: noise correlation · signal correlation | concept_edges[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · task-relevant —contrasted-with→ task-irrelevant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span said the motifs were heard equally often. This sentence names both AND GIVES THE DIFFERENTIA - 'the primary DIFFERENCE ... was thus the learned association…' between motifs and behavioural choices - so the contrast carries what it consists in. — strength of the relation: 1 · note: matched on familiarity and reward by design, differing only in whether the motif signalled a response - which is what makes the comparison interpretable
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span names only 'task-relevant motifs'; the task-irrelevant motifs are implied by 'only'. also in: task-relevant · task-irrelevant | concept_edges[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | noise correlation —causes→ population code Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: and the effect cannot be predicted from the average responses of individual neurons, which is the paper's motivating point
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the RELATIONSHIP between signal and noise correlations affects the fidelity of representations; causes is loose. also in: noise correlation · population code | concept_edges[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | population code —operationalised-as→ classification ratio Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'encoding', not 'population code'. also in: population code · classification ratio | concept_edges[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | task-relevant —contrasted-with→ task-irrelevant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the old span named ONE endpoint. also in: task-relevant · task-irrelevant | concept_edges[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Spearman correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Spearman correlation | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Pearson correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Pearson correlation | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ANCOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANCOVA | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repeated measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Friedman test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Friedman test | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Kruskal-Wallis test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Kruskal-Wallis test | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon signed-rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon signed-rank test | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multinomial logistic regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multinomial logistic regression | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cross-validation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-validation | content_tags.statistics[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | trial shuffling (permutation control) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Lilliefors normality test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Lilliefors normality test | content_tags.statistics[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Hartigan's dip test for bimodality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Hartigan's dip test for bimodality | content_tags.statistics[12] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | principal components analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: principal components analysis | content_tags.statistics[13] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error of the mean | content_tags.statistics[14] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multinomial logistic regression decoding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | trial shuffling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: trial shuffling | content_tags.statistics[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | two-way ANOVA interaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: two-way ANOVA interaction | content_tags.statistics[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Friedman test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Friedman test | content_tags.statistics[18] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | For motifs that had guided the birds' choices, the usual positive coupling between signal and noise correlation was inverted to a negative one. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | For task-irrelevant and novel motifs the signal-noise correlation relationship stayed positive. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Mean noise correlation did not differ between motif classes. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The magnitude of signal correlation was likewise unaffected by task relevance. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Task-relevant motifs showed a higher classification ratio than task-irrelevant or novel motifs. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The coding benefit conferred by correlations was flat with population size for irrelevant and novel motifs but grew steadily with population size for task-relevant motifs. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Firing rates were modestly higher for task-relevant than task-irrelevant motifs, and similar for irrelevant and novel motifs. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors claim priority for observing a negative signal-noise correlation relationship in cortex. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | learning produces stimulus-specific changes in inter-neuronal correlations that enhance recognition of behaviourally relevant signals, and the enhancement grows with population size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | correlations improve encoding when signal and noise correlations have opposite sign and impair it when they share sign Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | task-relevant motifs showed a higher classification ratio than task-irrelevant or novel motifs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the benefit of correlations grows with population size for task-relevant motifs and not for the others Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | enhanced coding of task-relevant motifs comes from both single-neuron response properties and correlations between neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | single-neuron firing rate differences were modest relative to the behavioural change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | task-irrelevant motifs were indistinguishable from novel motifs in correlation structure despite being equally familiar and rewarded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a negative relationship between signal and noise correlations had not previously been demonstrated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | noise correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: noise correlation | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | signal correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: signal correlation | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | classification ratio Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: classification ratio | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | motif Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: motif | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | inverted correlation structure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inverted correlation structure | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | wide spiking (WS) and narrow spiking (NS) neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | classification ratio Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: classification ratio | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | task-relevant motif Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task-relevant motif | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | task-irrelevant motif Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task-irrelevant motif | content_tags.definitions[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | behavioral relevance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioral relevance | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | number of neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: number of neurons | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | noise correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: noise correlation | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | signal correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: signal correlation | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | classification ratio Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: classification ratio | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | motif assignment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: motif assignment | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | analysis window Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: analysis window | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | task relevance of the motif Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task relevance of the motif | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | population size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: population size | content_tags.variables[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | r = −0.15, p = 0.051 — correlation between signal correlation and noise correlation across neuron pairs for task-relevant motifs (negative) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | r = 0.19 and r = 0.23 — the same signal-noise coupling for task-irrelevant and for novel motifs (positive) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p = 7.9×10 −5 — significance of the difference in regression slopes between motif classes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.082 / 0.100 / 0.087 — mean noise correlation for task-relevant, task-irrelevant and novel motifs - small and positive in every class Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | n = 176 pairs from 98 single neurons — the analysed sample of wide-spiking neuron pairs (narrow-spiking sample of 17 pairs was too small to analyse) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 51% vs 25% — decoding accuracy of the example two-neuron classifier against chance for four motifs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 5–6 neurons — population size at which the coding benefit of the learned correlation structure becomes substantial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Nine — number of wild-caught European starlings trained on the two-alternative choice task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 176 pairs from 98 wide-spiking neurons, against 17 pairs from 36 narrow-spiking — the analysed sample and the excluded one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED - THE POINTER WAS WRONG, NOT THE CLAIM) · 3.03 versus 2.74 Hz, p = 0.0080 — the modest single-neuron firing rate difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED - THE POINTER WAS WRONG, NOT THE CLAIM. The old evidence was a hedging remark - 'The modulation of single neuron firing rates is subtle' - carrying none of 3.03, 2.74 or 0.0080. The sentence that states the comparison is now the evidence. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | p = 1.8e-8 for the interaction — the dependence of the coding effect on the sign relationship Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sets of up to 8 neurons — the population sizes available for the scaling analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.