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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 8 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 | whether individual auditory cortex neurons carry stimulus information in spike times precise to a few milliseconds, and what feature of the spike train carries it 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 | how precisely must spike times be registered before stimulus information is lost 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 that registering spikes coarser than a few milliseconds loses information, that the carrier is fast modulation of firing rate rather than spike-time correlations, and that the precision depends on the stimulus dynamics 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 | existence 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 | millisecond spike-timing precision in auditory cortex 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 | effective precision is degraded by shuffling spikes between neighbouring bins, which lowers resolution without changing the statistical dimensionality of the data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | direct mutual information is used instead of decoding precisely because a decoder can miss information a neuron actually carries Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | and the two are then run against each other on the same data, showing the method itself shifts the apparent coding timescale 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 | the stimulus is chosen to make the test hardest - random chords have a correlation time of a few milliseconds and are the case where precise timing was argued not to survive 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 | a second stimulus class with a much slower correlation structure is run so that stimulus dynamics becomes a variable rather than a constant 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 peak-width measure is explicitly declared insufficient before the information analysis is introduced, because a spike could carry information by where it falls within a peak 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 | the information estimate is built to assume nothing about which acoustic features drive the cell 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 |
| mechanisms | significance of information loss is established per neuron against an artificial response carrying no information at that precision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the rate-versus-correlation question is settled by computing the information available to an observer who sees only the time-dependent rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the precision bound is bracketed from both sides rather than reported as a single figure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the discrepancy with earlier work is attributed to two separable method differences, and the experiment that would separate them is specified Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Because coding precision tracks stimulus dynamics, the reported precision is a lower bound and could be finer with faster stimuli. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the precision figure, with its direction: OUR RESULTS MAY RATHER PROVIDE A LOWER BOUND ON THE EFFECTIVE PRECISION, LEAVING THE POSSIBILITY THAT AUDITORY CORTEX NEURONS MIGHT ENCODE SENSORY INFORMATION AT THE (SUB) MILLISECOND SCALE | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The higher precision found here relative to earlier work may be an artefact of the continuous-sequence stimulation paradigm rather than a general property. 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 earlier reports, which is the paper's novelty: Quotation withheld | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The context dependence of coding time scales was not directly tested and is left to future work. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the generality of the time scales: FUTURE STUDIES SHOULD DIRECTLY INVESTIGATE THE CONTEXT DEPENDENCY OF NEURAL CODING TIME SCALES | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the precision reported is a lower bound, since faster stimuli might reveal finer coding 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] - faster stimuli could reveal finer coding | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | coding precision was much more variable across neurons for natural sounds, and the population loss was smaller than for random chords Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the natural-sound results specifically: THE PROPORTIONAL INFORMATION LOST BY REDUCING THE EFFECTIVE TEMPORAL PRECISION WAS SMALLER THAN THE RESULTS OBTAINED DURING STIMULATION WITH RANDOM CHORDS | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the difference from previous reports may itself be an artefact of presenting sounds continuously rather than in isolation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[1] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1] - continuous versus isolated presentation may explain the difference from previous work | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the biophysical account of why faster stimuli give more precise spikes is offered as a simple hypothesis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the mechanistic account: A SIMPLE HYPOTHESIS IS THAT PRECISION OF SPIKE TIMES IS DETERMINED BY THE SLOPE OF THE MEMBRANE VOLTAGE WHEN CROSSING THE FIRING THRESHOLD - offered as a hypothesis, not shown | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the link to behaviour is explicitly a temptation rather than a result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the link to behaviour: IT IS TEMPTING TO HYPOTHESIZE THAT SUCH MILLISECOND-PRECISE SINGLE NEURON-ENCODING SERVES AS NEURAL SUBSTRATE FOR RECENTLY REPORTED BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | Shannon's mutual information, defined over a set of stimuli and a set of responses, is imported as the direct measure of what a spike train tells an observer about the sound 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 | Shannon mutual information estimated directly, chosen because it bounds all the information a response could carry rather than what a particular decoder can extract 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 | the finding that response precision scales with stimulus speed, imported as the prediction that the auditory answer should depend on stimulus dynamics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | each stimulus repeated many times - 55 repeats on average, range 39 to 70 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a spike-timing precision estimate built on too few trials to separate reliable timing from chance alignment · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | temporal coding - as spike-time correlations carrying information beyond the rate versus as fast modulation of the rate itself; the paper finds the second and so the dichotomy dissolves 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 | precision of the neural code - defined operationally as the coarsest resolution that still yields all the information a response carries 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 | response precision - as PSTH peak width versus as information loss under degraded resolution; the first is declared insufficient and the second is what the claims rest on 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 | coding timescale - as a property of the neuron versus as a property of the neuron given a stimulus; the same cells are more precise for faster sounds 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 |
| senses | millisecond precision - established at the auditory periphery and subcortex, but contested at cortex; the paper places cortex between the two Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | a sound presented in silence versus embedded in a continuous stream of similar sounds - two paradigms that may give different answers about the same neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: existence 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: existence — 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: single-unit recording in passively listening macaques during long continuous random-chord and natural-sound sequences, with direct Shannon information estimates and a spike-shuffling procedure that degrades effective precision 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: temporal precision of the neural code in auditory cortex 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: millisecond spike-timing precision in auditory cortex — 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 | contradicts → previous studies reporting 10- to 20-ms coarse coding precision in auditory cortex (refs. 9 and 11) 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 | builds-on → Desbordes et al. (ref. 19), PSTH autocorrelogram measure of response precision 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 | extends → ref. 18, response precision scaling with stimulus speed in visual thalamus of anesthetized cats 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 conclusion that millisecond-precise spike timing adds nothing beyond spike rate on the 10-20 ms scale in auditory cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → decoding-based analyses, which understate the information carried at fine precision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS THE TEMPORAL SENSITIVITY OF THE DECODER. 'Quotation withheld' A published estimate of how much information a neuron carries is bounded by the resolution of the tool used to read it - so a lower number is evidence about the decoder as much as about the neuron. | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → paradigms presenting brief isolated sounds separated by silence, which may themselves produce the coarser precision reported Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS THE STIMULATION PARADIGM, AND THE PAPER TURNS IT ON ITSELF. 'Quotation withheld' The disagreement with the literature is attributed to the paper's own method BEFORE ANYONE ELSE CAN ATTRIBUTE IT - and its [4] makes the complementary point about OTHER people's decoders, so one paper supplies both halves of why the numbers differ. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → established millisecond precision at peripheral and subcortical auditory stages, upward to cortex 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 |
| claim_relations | supports → findings in rat somatosensory cortex and retina that sensory codes require millisecond resolution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the visual thalamus result that response precision is higher for faster stimuli, to auditory cortex in the alert primate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[8] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | time-dependent firing rate —contrasted-with→ higher-order correlations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | temporal precision —operationalised-as→ mutual information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'Shannon information [I(S;R)]', not 'mutual information'. also in: temporal precision · mutual information | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | stimulus dynamics —causes→ temporal precision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the results 'SUGGEST' precision 'MAY depend' on stimulus dynamics; causes is hedged. also in: stimulus dynamics · temporal precision | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | decoding —contrasted-with→ mutual information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: decoding · mutual information | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | random chords —contrasted-with→ natural sounds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: random chords · natural sounds | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | temporal precision —operationalised-as→ PSTH autocorrelogram 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
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'response precision', not 'temporal precision'. also in: temporal precision · PSTH autocorrelogram | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | effective precision —causes→ information per spike Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'response precision', not 'effective precision'. also in: effective precision · information per spike | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | membrane voltage —causes→ spike timing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but 'a simple hypothesis' is that precision is determined by the voltage slope; causes is hedged. also in: membrane voltage · spike timing | concept_edges[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mutual information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mutual information | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | bootstrap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bootstrap | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | median Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | autocorrelation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: autocorrelation | content_tags.statistics[4] | 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[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | bias correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bias correction | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Shannon information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Shannon information | content_tags.statistics[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | bootstrap procedure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bootstrap procedure | content_tags.statistics[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | limited sampling bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: limited sampling bias | content_tags.statistics[9] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | autocorrelation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: autocorrelation | content_tags.statistics[10] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Registering auditory cortex spike times at a resolution coarser than a few milliseconds significantly reduces the stimulus information that can be recovered. 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 | The effective coding resolution in this dataset lies between 1 ms and roughly 4-6 ms, since degrading precision from 1 to 2 ms cost no information but 4-6 ms did. 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 | Nearly all of the stimulus information resides in the finely timed modulation of firing rate, with higher-order correlations between spike times contributing negligibly. 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 | Response precision and the cost of coarsening it were greater for the fast-varying random chords than for natural sounds, so coding precision tracks the stimulus's own time scale. 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 | Linear decoding showed smaller information losses when precision was degraded, so it would have indicated a coarser encoding timescale than direct estimates. 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 | median PSTH autocorrelogram half-width was 5 ms for random chords, indicating precision finer than 10 ms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | information loss was 5%, 11% and 20% at effective precisions of 4, 6 and 12 ms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | loss was significant for 7% of neurons at 4 ms and 46% at 12 ms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | no neuron lost information going from 1 ms to 2 ms bins, so the precision is coarser than 1 ms but finer than about 4 to 6 ms 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 | information per spike fell from 4.3 bits at 1 ms to 3.6 and 2.6 bits at 6 and 12 ms 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 | the time-dependent firing rate accounted for 99% of the total information, so higher-order spike correlations add essentially nothing 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 | for natural sounds the proportional information loss was smaller than for random chords 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 | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED - THE POINTER WAS WRONG, NOT THE CLAIM, AND THE AUTOMATIC CANDIDATE WAS WRONG TOO) · but a subset still showed significant loss, 11% at 6 ms and 17% at 12 ms 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, AND THE AUTOMATIC CANDIDATE WAS WRONG TOO. The old evidence was the sentence immediately BEFORE the one carrying the numbers. the project's candidate generator proposed 'the information loss amounted…' - A DIFFERENT QUANTITY: the MEDIAN INFORMATION LOSS, not the FRACTION OF NEURONS with a significant loss. Taking it would have made the claim say 20% where the paper says 17%. The right sentence is the next one and gives 11 and 17% exactly as the claim does. A GOOD CANDIDATE GENERATOR IS A BAD EDITOR, in the project's own words. | content_tags.findings[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | so millisecond timing carries information about natural sounds that a 10 ms spike count cannot recover 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 | linear decoding showed smaller losses than direct information, and would have implied a coarser coding timescale from the same data 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 | precision was finer and information loss larger for the faster-varying stimulus 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 | cortical precision is high but coarser than at peripheral and subcortical auditory stages Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Shannon (mutual) information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Shannon (mutual) information | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | precision of the neural code Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: precision of the neural code | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | random chords Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: random chords | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | precision of the neural code Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: precision of the neural code | content_tags.definitions[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Shannon information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Shannon information | content_tags.definitions[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | shuffling procedure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shuffling procedure | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | random chords Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: random chords | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | effective temporal precision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effective temporal precision | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | information loss Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: information loss | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | response precision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response precision | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | statistical dimensionality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical dimensionality | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | effective precision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effective precision | content_tags.variables[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | stimulus information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus information | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | correlation time scale Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation time scale | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | information per spike Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: information per spike | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 5 ms — population median half-width at half-height of the PSTH autocorrelogram (response precision) during random chord stimulation 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 | 5, 11, and 20% — median information loss at effective precisions of 4, 6, and 12 ms relative to 1 ms precision 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 | 4.3 bits/spike — median information per spike at 1 ms precision for neurons with significant loss at 12 ms, dropping to 3.6 and 2.6 bits/spike at 6 and 12 ms 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 | 99 ± 0.2% — share of total stimulus information captured by the time-dependent firing rate alone at precisions below 48 ms 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 | 46% — proportion of random-chord neurons with statistically significant information loss at 12 ms effective precision (7% already at 4 ms) 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 | 16 ms — median PSTH-derived response precision during natural sound stimulation 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 ms — population median PSTH autocorrelogram half-width for random chords Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 5, 11, and 20% — median information loss at 4, 6 and 12 ms effective precision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 4.3 bits/spike — information per spike at 1 ms precision, falling to 2.6 at 12 ms 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 | 99 ± 0.2% — share of total information available from the time-dependent rate alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | n = 41 and n = 31 — neurons recorded for random chords and for natural sounds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. value source note: THE VALUE DRAWS ON THE PAPER BEYOND THIS QUOTE: part of it is printed elsewhere in the paper, not in this quote ('responses of 41 neurons to a sequence of pseudorandom tones…'). | content_tags.quantities[10] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | average 55 repeats — stimulus repetitions per recording, range 39 to 70 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 40-s and 52-s — durations of the random chord and natural sound sequences Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[12] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | three adult rhesus monkeys — the sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[13] | 1.0 | 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.