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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
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 9 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 | why SINGLE SENSORY NEURONS CAN BE SURPRISINGLY PREDICTIVE OF BEHAVIOR IN DISCRIMINATION TASKS 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 | which of two accounts is right, given that BOTH SUBOPTIMAL DECODING AND INFORMATION-LIMITING NOISE CORRELATIONS COULD EXPLAIN THESE TWO PUZZLING PHENOMENA - WHICH IS THE CORRECT EXPLANATION? 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 | a pair of quantitative predictions that separate the two accounts, and the finding that CHOICE CORRELATIONS CAN BE USED TO ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DOWNSTREAM READ-OUT AND DETECT THE PRESENCE OF INFORMATION-LIMITING CORRELATIONS 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 | choice correlations between sensory neurons and perceptual decisions 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 | under optimal decoding THE CHOICE CORRELATIONS TAKE THE REMARKABLY SIMPLE FORM OF A RATIO OF DISCRIMINATION THRESHOLDS - and this prediction HAS NO FREE PARAMETERS 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 information cannot be created downstream: IF INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE INPUT, THEN IT CANNOT BE CREATED LATER BY ADDING MORE NEURONS - THOSE EXTRA NEURONS MAY APPEAR TO ADD MORE SIGNAL STRENGTH, BUT THEY ALSO INHERIT NOISE WITH THE SAME STRUCTURE AS THE 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 | and that noise cannot be pooled away: THESE INFORMATION-LIMITING CORRELATIONS CANNOT BE AVERAGED AWAY BY APPROPRIATELY POOLING MANY NEURONS, BECAUSE THESE NOISE FLUCTUATIONS ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM CHANGES IN NEURAL ACTIVITY INDUCED BY A REAL SIGNAL 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 | ONLY NOISE CORRELATIONS THAT MIMIC THE EFFECT OF THE STIMULUS ON POPULATION ACTIVITY LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT CHOICE CORRELATIONS - called DIFFERENTIAL CORRELATIONS BECAUSE THE CORRELATIONS MIMIC THE RELEVANT SIGNAL WHICH IS THE DIFFERENTIAL (DERIVATIVE) OF THE MEAN RESPONSES 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 |
| limitations | Measurement noise leaves open other classes of suboptimal decoder that were not tested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the decoder conclusion: IT REMAINS POSSIBLE THAT NEURAL PROCESSING IS EVEN BETTER DESCRIBED BY SOME OTHER CLASS OF SUBOPTIMAL DECODERS THAT WE DID NOT CONSIDER | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The conclusions depend on the specific class of suboptimal (correlation-blind) decoders considered 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[0]: THESE RESULTS DEPEND ON THE PARTICULAR CLASS OF SUBOPTIMAL DECODERS WE CONSIDERED ... NAMELY THE CORRELATION-BLIND DECODERS | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | A decoder that removes only the noisiest mode cannot be definitively excluded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the noisiest-mode argument specifically: WE CANNOT DEFINITIVELY RULE IT OUT | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The optimality test depends on measuring neural thresholds from signals that are not known to be the ones driving behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the optimality test itself: IDEALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO COMPUTE NEURAL THRESHOLDS FROM THE SAME NEURAL SIGNALS THAT DRIVE THE BEHAVIOR, BUT WE DON'T KNOW PRECISELY WHAT THOSE SIGNALS ARE | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the quantity the whole account turns on is not directly measurable - INFORMATION-LIMITING CORRELATIONS ARE DIFFICULT TO ESTIMATE DIRECTLY, REQUIRING LARGE SIMULTANEOUS RECORDINGS WITH MANY TRIALS, and EXTRAPOLATING THE FULL NOISE CORRELATIONS FROM A SPARSE SUBSET OF PAIRWISE CORRELATION MEASUREMENTS IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, AND MISTAKES CAN RADICALLY CHANGE THE ESTIMATED INFORMATION CONTENT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim about the information content of a population built from pairwise correlation measurements | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the conclusion is relative to one family of alternatives - THESE RESULTS DEPEND ON THE PARTICULAR CLASS OF SUBOPTIMAL DECODERS WE CONSIDERED IN THE EXTENSIVE INFORMATION CASE, NAMELY THE CORRELATION-BLIND DECODERS, which is QUITE GENERAL, ALTHOUGH NOT ALL-ENCOMPASSING Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the suboptimality conclusion, which is relative to one family: THESE RESULTS DEPEND ON THE PARTICULAR CLASS OF SUBOPTIMAL DECODERS WE CONSIDERED ... NAMELY THE CORRELATION-BLIND DECODERS | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | DUE TO MEASUREMENT NOISE IN THE DATA, IT REMAINS POSSIBLE THAT NEURAL PROCESSING IS EVEN BETTER DESCRIBED BY SOME OTHER CLASS OF SUBOPTIMAL DECODERS THAT WE DID NOT CONSIDER 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] - DUE TO MEASUREMENT NOISE IN THE DATA, IT REMAINS POSSIBLE THAT NEURAL PROCESSING IS EVEN BETTER DESCRIBED BY SOME OTHER class of decoder | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and the authors say the model cannot be forced to fail - WE CAN ALWAYS CONCOCT SOME COMBINATION OF CORRELATIONS AND SUBOPTIMAL DECODERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH FINE DETAILS OF OUR MEASUREMENTS, rejected on the ground that it WOULD REQUIRE UNPALATABLE FINE-TUNING OF THE MODEL Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: treating the conclusion as an exclusion rather than as a parsimony judgment | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the two hypotheses are only separable if the sample is diverse enough - THE PREDICTIONS FOR OPTIMAL DECODING COULD BE SATISFIED EVEN FOR A POPULATION OF NEURONS DECODED SUBOPTIMALLY, LEADING US TO MISCHARACTERIZE A SUBOPTIMAL SYSTEM AS OPTIMAL, and THAT NEARLY HAPPENS FOR A HOMOGENEOUS POPULATION Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: applying the test in a preparation whose tuning curves are not heterogeneous | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | one monkey's data did not decide anything - CHOICE CORRELATIONS FOR MSTd IN THE OTHER MONKEY WERE INCONCLUSIVE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the MSTd evidence specifically: CHOICE CORRELATIONS FOR MSTd IN THE OTHER MONKEY WERE INCONCLUSIVE | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | a result of this paper is that an elegant earlier method may not work - SUCH A FULL RECONSTRUCTION MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE IN THE PRESENCE OF INFORMATION-LIMITING CORRELATIONS, and IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO USE CHOICE PROBABILITIES TO COMPUTE DECODING WEIGHTS FROM EXPERIMENTAL DATA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the earlier weight-reconstruction method, which this result bears on: DESPITE THE ELEGANCE OF THIS RESULT, ONE CONSEQUENCE OF OUR FI[ndings is that] SUCH A FULL RECONSTRUCTION MAY NOT BE [possible] | limitations[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | THE DATA PROCESSING INEQUALITY, used to rule out a model of cortical coding outright - THE EXTENSIVE INFORMATION MODEL ATTRIBUTES MORE INFORMATION TO THE CORTEX THAN TO THE SENSORS, AND THIS IS PROHIBITED Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the Akaike Information Criterion, used to choose between five predictors of the same measurements - and OUR DATA WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE MODELS 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 |
| controls | the whole discrimination procedure run first on simulated populations whose decoder was known Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the method not being able to tell the two hypotheses apart at all - IN ALL FOUR MODEL SYSTEMS, THIS METHOD WAS ABLE TO RECOVER THE TRUE VALUES OF BOTH COEFFICIENTS WITHIN THE SIMULATED EXPERIMENTAL UNCERTAINTY · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.7 | the tagger's words |
| controls | three further optimality signatures checked, each of which could have failed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: optimality being read off one fit - uninformative neurons had choice correlations NO MORE THAN EXPECTED BY CHANCE, NO NEURONS HAVE A THRESHOLD LOWER THAN THE ANIMAL'S BEHAVIORAL THRESHOLD, and negative choice correlations excluded zero for ONLY 4/339 RECORDED CELLS · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a neuron-antineuron correction applied to the neural thresholds that an earlier study omitted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: NO NEURONS HAVE A THRESHOLD LOWER THAN THE ANIMAL'S BEHAVIORAL THRESHOLD, AS LONG AS NEURAL THRESHOLDS ARE PROPERLY CORRECTED FOR USE OF A NEURON-ANTINEURON PAIR - A CORRECTION THAT WAS NOT APPLIED IN ( COHEN AND NEWSOME 2009 ) · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | model quality scored by AIC against a null model and three alternatives Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a better fit bought with free parameters - and OUR DATA WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE MODELS · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | choice probability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: choice probability | concepts[1] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: threshold | concepts[2] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | efficiency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: efficiency | concepts[11] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | noise fluctuations → real signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. PROVED INDISTINGUISHABLE - the FORMAL form / Not 'we could not tell them apart' but 'they cannot be told apart'. AND IT SURVIVES THE OBVIOUS REMEDY: 'These information-limiting correlations cannot be averaged away by appropriately pooling many neurons, because these noise fluctuations are indistinguishable from changes in neural activity induced by a real signal'. The indistinguishability is the REASON pooling fails, so it is load-bearing for the paper's conclusion rather than a caveat on it. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | THE LARGEST CORRELATION WITH CHOICE SITS IN THE AREA THAT DOES NOT MATTER: REVERSIBLE CHEMICAL INACTIVATION OF VIP DOES NOT IMPAIR HEADING DISCRIMINATION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT VIP NEURONS EXHIBIT LARGE CHOICE CORRELATIONS - and the same holds in another area, ANOTHER RECENT STUDY OF THE PARIETAL CORTEX (AREA LIP) ALSO REPORTS HIGH CHOICE CORRELATIONS, YET INACTIVATING THIS REGION AGAIN HAS NO DISCERNIBLE EFFECT ON VISUAL MOTION DISCRIMINATION 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 | and the paper's own summary says the same in its own voice: VIP EXHIBITS HIGH CHOICE PROBABILITIES AND ROBUST NOISE CORRELATIONS MUCH LIKE VN/CN, YET OUR ANALYSIS SUGGESTS THAT VIP IS DECODED SUBOPTIMALLY, IF AT ALL 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 FIELD'S STANDARD MEASURE OF A NEURON'S INVOLVEMENT IS THEREFORE NOT A MEASURE OF INVOLVEMENT: the brain LOSES VERY LITTLE INFORMATION BY IGNORING VIP, and the choice correlations there are the largest of the three areas 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 PAPER STATES THE RULE THIS PROJECT CALLS WITHIN-RUN COMPARISONS ONLY: IF DIFFERENT BRAIN REGIONS SEEM TO HAVE DIFFERENT CHOICE CORRELATIONS, ONE MUST TAKE CARE TO ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENCES IN PSYCHOPHYSICAL SENSITIVITY BETWEEN ANIMALS BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRAIN AREAS IS MEANINGFUL - THE SUREST DIAGNOSTIC WOULD BE TO MEASURE CHOICE CORRELATIONS FROM MULTIPLE AREAS WITHIN A SINGLE ANIMAL. The measure has the animal's own threshold in its denominator 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 | THE SAME NUMBER MEANS OPTIMAL OR SUBOPTIMAL DEPENDING ON A CONSTANT: SUCH A PATTERN OF CHOICE CORRELATIONS INDICATES OPTIMAL DECODING IF AND ONLY IF THE PROPORTIONALITY CONSTANT EQUALS THE THRESHOLD OF POPULATION ACTIVITY - ALL OTHER VALUES OF THE PROPORTIONALITY CONSTANT REFLECT SUBOPTIMAL DECODING. The pattern alone is not the finding 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 | and a scale above one is diagnostic of the opposite of what it looks like: CHOICE CORRELATIONS PROPORTIONAL BUT NOT EQUAL TO THE OPTIMAL PREDICTION OCCUR ONLY WITH SOME DEGREE OF SUBOPTIMAL DECODING - WHENEVER THE CHOICE CORRELATIONS HAVE β ≠1, THE EFFICIENCY IS LESS THAN 1 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 |
| senses | THE COUNTER-INTUITIVE CASE, WORKED OUT: choice correlations LARGER than the optimal prediction arise WHEN BEHAVIOR IS DRIVEN BY ANOTHER, MORE INFORMATIVE, SOURCE OF SENSORY SIGNALS BESIDE THE NEURAL POPULATION UNDER STUDY - a neuron can be perfectly correlated with a choice it plays no part in Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | TWO HYPOTHESES ARE ONLY DISTINGUISHABLE IF THE SAMPLE IS DIVERSE: THE PREDICTIONS FOR OPTIMAL DECODING COULD BE SATISFIED EVEN FOR A POPULATION OF NEURONS DECODED SUBOPTIMALLY, LEADING US TO MISCHARACTERIZE A SUBOPTIMAL SYSTEM AS OPTIMAL, and THAT NEARLY HAPPENS FOR A HOMOGENEOUS POPULATION. The discriminating power of the test is a property of the sample, not of the theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND AN EARLIER RESULT HOLDS ONLY UNDER ITS OWN IDEALISATION: WEAK POSITIVE NOISE CORRELATIONS DO NOT ALWAYS PRODUCE LARGE CHOICE CORRELATIONS - THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR THE MODEL THEY CONSIDER WITH HOMOGENEOUS NEURONS AND HOMOGENEOUS NOISE CORRELATIONS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | A MODEL RULED OUT BY A MATHEMATICAL LAW RATHER THAN BY DATA: SINCE CORTICAL POPULATIONS ARE MUCH LARGER THAN THE SENSORY POPULATION BUT NOT MUCH NOISIER, THE EXTENSIVE INFORMATION MODEL ATTRIBUTES MORE INFORMATION TO THE CORTEX THAN TO THE SENSORS - AND THIS IS PROHIBITED BY THE DATA PROCESSING INEQUALITY Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | and one hypothesis killed by an order-of-magnitude argument: THE CHOICE CORRELATIONS WOULD THEN BE CORRESPONDINGLY TINY, AND MOST LIKELY NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM ZERO GIVEN TYPICAL MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY - THIS ARGUMENT RULES OUT MODELS IN WHICH THE BRAIN HAS EXTENSIVE INFORMATION AND DECODES IT OPTIMALLY Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | TWO CONVENTIONAL EXPECTATIONS REVERSED. First: CHOICE CORRELATION SHOULD BE SMALLER FOR LARGER POPULATIONS SINCE INFORMATION IS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS MORE NEURONS - HOWEVER, IF THE CODE IS REDUNDANT AND DECODED NEAR-OPTIMALLY, THEN THE CHOICE CORRELATIONS DO NOT VARY WITH POPULATION SIZE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Second, and it can invert: CHOICE CORRELATIONS SHOULD BE GREATER WHEN NOISE CORRELATIONS ARE LARGER - THIS IS TRUE ONLY FOR A SPECIFIC PATTERN OF CORRELATIONS, OR FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DECODERS, and CHOICE CORRELATIONS COULD POTENTIALLY RISE EVEN WHILE THE TOTAL NOISE CORRELATION FALLS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | OPTIMALITY IS CHEAP AND THE PAPER SAYS SO: ACHIEVING NEAR-OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE MAY NOT BE SUCH AN IMPRESSIVE FEAT, AS OUR RESULTS IMPLY THAT THE INFORMATION ENCODED IN NEURAL POPULATIONS IS HIGHLY REDUNDANT AND THEREFORE ROBUST TO SUBOPTIMAL DECODING - OPTIMALITY MEASURES THE QUALITY OF DECODING, RATHER THAN THE PARTICULAR NETWORK STRUCTURE USED TO DECODE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | so the label does not identify the mechanism: A BROAD RANGE OF DECODERS MAY ALL PRODUCE SIMILAR NEAR-OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE, and THE TRUE DECODING WEIGHTS COULD RESEMBLE THOSE OF A CORRELATION-BLIND DECODER, OR MANY OTHER DECODERS, AND YET BE NEAR-OPTIMAL Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE QUANTITY THE ARGUMENT TURNS ON CANNOT BE MEASURED DIRECTLY: INFORMATION-LIMITING CORRELATIONS ARE DIFFICULT TO ESTIMATE DIRECTLY, THE INFORMATION-LIMITING COMPONENT CAN BE VERY SMALL YET HAVE ENORMOUS EFFECTS ON POPULATION INFORMATION, and MISTAKES CAN RADICALLY CHANGE THE ESTIMATED INFORMATION CONTENT OF A NEURAL POPULATION - so it is inferred from an INDIRECT CONSEQUENCE observable with single neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | and it is invisible by construction: INFORMATION-LIMITING NOISE CORRELATIONS MAY HIDE ESSENTIALLY UNNOTICED AMONGST OTHER NOISE CORRELATIONS WITH HIGHER VARIANCE THAT ARISE DOWNSTREAM, because THESE NOISE FLUCTUATIONS ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM CHANGES IN NEURAL ACTIVITY INDUCED BY A REAL SIGNAL Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | A PREDICTION WITH NO FREE PARAMETERS, AND THE AUTHORS SAY SO: THE RATIO OF PSYCHOPHYSICAL TO NEURAL THRESHOLDS DID A REASONABLE JOB OF PREDICTING THE MEASURED CHOICE CORRELATIONS - WE EMPHASIZE THAT THIS PREDICTION HAS NO FREE PARAMETERS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AN ADMISSION THAT THE MODEL CANNOT BE FORCED TO FAIL: WE CAN ALWAYS CONCOCT SOME COMBINATION OF CORRELATIONS AND SUBOPTIMAL DECODERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH FINE DETAILS OF OUR MEASUREMENTS - HOWEVER, THIS WOULD REQUIRE UNPALATABLE FINE-TUNING OF THE MODEL. The conclusion is a parsimony judgment and is labelled as one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE INFORMATION CANNOT BE MANUFACTURED DOWNSTREAM: IF INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE INPUT, THEN IT CANNOT BE CREATED LATER BY ADDING MORE NEURONS - THOSE EXTRA NEURONS MAY APPEAR TO ADD MORE SIGNAL STRENGTH, BUT THEY ALSO INHERIT NOISE WITH THE SAME STRUCTURE AS THE SIGNAL Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | and the empirical answer: THE RESULTANT REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS ON THE SUBOPTIMAL PREDICTORS WERE NEAR ZERO, WHEREAS THOSE ON OPTIMAL PREDICTORS WERE CLOSE TO ONE - THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE VESTIBULAR AND CEREBELLAR NUCLEI IS USED NEAR-OPTIMALLY, AND BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE IS LIMITED PRIMARILY BY CORRELATED NOISE, NOT SUBOPTIMAL DECODING Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[20] | 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: derive the choice-correlation pattern each hypothesis implies, verify on simulated populations that the two can be told apart, then fit both predictors to recorded neurons by linear regression and compare models by AIC 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: a correlation between a single neuron's firing and the animal's choice, which is large and common where the theory of the day says it should be immeasurably small 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: choice correlations between sensory neurons and perceptual decisions — 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 | extends → Haefner, Gerwinn et al. 2013 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 → Moreno-Bote, Beck et al. 2014 (differential correlations) 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 | contradicts → Shamir and Sompolinsky 2006; Ecker, Berens et al. 2011 (extensive-information models of population codes) 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 | qualifies → Zohary, Shadlen et al. 1994, that weakly correlated noise explains covariation of single neurons with decisions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: the homogeneity of the model - WEAK POSITIVE NOISE CORRELATIONS DO NOT ALWAYS PRODUCE LARGE CHOICE CORRELATIONS - THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR THE MODEL THEY CONSIDER WITH HOMOGENEOUS NEURONS AND HOMOGENEOUS NOISE CORRELATIONS | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → models in which cortical populations carry extensive information that is decoded optimally Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: what the choice correlations would then have to be - CORRESPONDINGLY TINY, AND MOST LIKELY NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM ZERO GIVEN TYPICAL MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → Haefner, Gerwinn et al. 2013's reconstruction of decoding weights from choice probabilities Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether information-limiting correlations are present - MANY DIFFERENT DECODING WEIGHT PROFILES CAN EXTRACT NEARLY ALL OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Haefner, Gerwinn et al. 2013's analysis of choice probability, extended to information-limiting correlations and suboptimal decoding 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 | contradicts → the expectation that choice correlations shrink as the decoded population grows Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether the code is redundant - IF THE CODE IS REDUNDANT AND DECODED NEAR-OPTIMALLY, THEN THE CHOICE CORRELATIONS DO NOT VARY WITH POPULATION SIZE | claim_relations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | reconciles → large choice correlations in VIP against the null effect of inactivating it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: preliminary results · differs in: whether the area is decoded - VIP IS NOT DECODED FOR HEADING DISCRIMINATION BUT NONETHELESS CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS CORRELATED WITH ANOTHER AREA THAT IS DECODED NEAR-OPTIMALLY | claim_relations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | VIP —contrasted-with→ MSTd Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION IS ACTUALLY USED. 'Quotation withheld.' The areas are not distinguished by what they encode but by what the animal does with it - and 'for this task' bounds it, so the same area could be read efficiently elsewhere. · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Quotation withheld | concept_edges[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | choice correlation —operationalised-as→ threshold 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: FOR OPTIMAL COMPUTATION, THE CHOICE CORRELATIONS TAKE THE REMARKABLY SIMPLE FORM OF A RATIO OF DISCRIMINATION THRESHOLDS also in: choice correlation · threshold | concept_edges[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | optimal decoding —contrasted-with→ suboptimal decoding 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: BOTH SUBOPTIMAL DECODING AND INFORMATION-LIMITING NOISE CORRELATIONS COULD EXPLAIN THESE TWO PUZZLING PHENOMENA. WHICH IS THE CORRECT EXPLANATION? also in: optimal decoding · suboptimal decoding | concept_edges[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | decoder —operationalised-as→ correlation-blind 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 · note: THE PARTICULAR CLASS OF SUBOPTIMAL DECODERS WE CONSIDERED... NAMELY THE CORRELATION-BLIND DECODERS, which is QUITE GENERAL, ALTHOUGH NOT ALL-ENCOMPASSING
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but correlation-blind decoders are the class considered; operationalised-as is loose. also in: decoder · correlation-blind | concept_edges[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | information-limiting —part-of→ noise correlations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.3 — the record marks this weak · note: INFORMATION-LIMITING NOISE CORRELATIONS MAY HIDE ESSENTIALLY UNNOTICED AMONGST OTHER NOISE CORRELATIONS WITH HIGHER VARIANCE THAT ARISE DOWNSTREAM also in: information-limiting · noise correlations | concept_edges[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | differential correlations —causes→ choice correlation 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: THE ONLY NOISE CORRELATIONS THAT LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT CHOICE CORRELATIONS ARE THOSE THAT MIMIC THE EFFECT OF THE STIMULUS ON POPULATION ACTIVITY also in: differential correlations · choice correlation | concept_edges[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | noise correlations —contrasted-with→ choice correlation 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 DECODING REGIME. 'choice correlations should be greater when noise correlations are larger ... This is true only for A specific pattern of correlations, or for certain types of decoders. For SUBOPTIMAL DECODING of highly informative populations, choice correlations DO increase with the overall scale of correlated noise. However, our results instead favor near-optimal decoding, for which most correlations play little role.' The expected relationship is not denied - it is confined to a decoding assumption, and the assumption is not a property of the data. · strength of the relation: 0.4 — the record marks this weak · note: CHOICE CORRELATIONS COULD POTENTIALLY RISE EVEN WHILE THE TOTAL NOISE CORRELATION FALLS
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but choice correlations rise with noise correlations only for certain patterns or decoders; contrasted-with is loose. also in: noise correlations · choice correlation | concept_edges[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | population —contrasted-with→ choice correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.3 — the record marks this weak · note: IF THE CODE IS REDUNDANT AND DECODED NEAR-OPTIMALLY, THEN THE CHOICE CORRELATIONS DO NOT VARY WITH POPULATION SIZE
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span discusses how choice correlation scales with population size; contrasted-with is loose. also in: population · choice correlation | concept_edges[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | choice probability —same-as→ choice correlation 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 · note: THIS QUANTITY HAS A SIMPLE, NEARLY AFFINE RELATIONSHIP TO CHOICE PROBABILITY... BUT IT IS CONCEPTUAL SIMPLER AND MATHEMATICALLY MORE CONVENIENT
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but choice correlation has 'a simple, NEARLY AFFINE relationship to' choice probability; same-as is loose. also in: choice probability · choice correlation | concept_edges[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Akaike Information Criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Akaike Information Criterion | content_tags.statistics[1] | 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | permutation test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: permutation test | content_tags.statistics[3] | 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[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ROC analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ROC analysis | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | maximum likelihood estimation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: maximum likelihood estimation | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | confidence interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confidence interval | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Akaike Information Criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Akaike Information Criterion | content_tags.statistics[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | linear regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: linear regression | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | 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[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | More informative neurons - those with lower discrimination thresholds - correlate more strongly with the animal's choice. 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 two competing explanations are separable in the data because optimal decoding predicts choice correlations that scale with each neuron's threshold and ignore its preferred stimulus, while correlation-blind suboptimal decoding predicts the reverse. 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 | Quotation withheld 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 | Quotation withheld 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 | MSTd and VN/CN carry redundant heading codes read out near-optimally, whereas the data suggest VIP's information is not used efficiently for this task. 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 | However the population is decoded, information-limiting noise keeps the variance of any unbiased linear estimator from falling below ε. 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 | Because information-limited population codes are highly redundant, a wide range of suboptimal decoders performs almost as well as the optimal one. 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 | Confidence intervals excluded zero from below for only 4 of 339 recorded cells, a proportion that is not significant. 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 | No recorded neuron had a discrimination threshold better than the animal's behavioral threshold once thresholds were corrected for the neuron-antineuron pairing, as optimal computation requires. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Contrary to the common expectation that choice correlations shrink as the pool of neurons grows, they are independent of population size when the code is redundant and read out near-optimally. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | REVERSIBLE CHEMICAL INACTIVATION OF VIP DOES NOT IMPAIR HEADING DISCRIMINATION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT VIP NEURONS EXHIBIT LARGE CHOICE CORRELATIONS 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 | ANOTHER RECENT STUDY OF THE PARIETAL CORTEX (AREA LIP) ALSO REPORTS HIGH CHOICE CORRELATIONS, YET INACTIVATING THIS REGION AGAIN HAS NO DISCERNIBLE EFFECT ON VISUAL MOTION DISCRIMINATION 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 | THE RESULTANT REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS ON THE SUBOPTIMAL PREDICTORS WERE NEAR ZERO, WHEREAS THOSE ON OPTIMAL PREDICTORS WERE CLOSE TO ONE 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 | THE PREDICTION OF SUBOPTIMAL DECODING WAS POORLY MATCHED TO DATA ACROSS ALL AREAS 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 | NO NEURONS HAVE A THRESHOLD LOWER THAN THE ANIMAL'S BEHAVIORAL THRESHOLD, AS LONG AS NEURAL THRESHOLDS ARE PROPERLY CORRECTED FOR USE OF A NEURON-ANTINEURON PAIR 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 | the negative choice correlations' 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS EXCLUDE ZERO FROM BELOW FOR ONLY 4/339 RECORDED CELLS, A PROPORTION WHICH IS NOT SIGNIFICANT 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 | CHOICE CORRELATIONS PROPORTIONAL BUT NOT EQUAL TO THE OPTIMAL PREDICTION OCCUR ONLY WITH SOME DEGREE OF SUBOPTIMAL DECODING 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 | IF THE CODE IS REDUNDANT AND DECODED NEAR-OPTIMALLY, THEN THE CHOICE CORRELATIONS DO NOT VARY 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[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | CHOICE CORRELATIONS COULD POTENTIALLY RISE EVEN WHILE THE TOTAL NOISE CORRELATION FALLS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | WEAK POSITIVE NOISE CORRELATIONS DO NOT ALWAYS PRODUCE LARGE CHOICE CORRELATIONS - THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR THE MODEL THEY CONSIDER WITH HOMOGENEOUS NEURONS AND HOMOGENEOUS NOISE CORRELATIONS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | choice correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: choice correlation | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | choice probability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: choice probability | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | differential correlations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: differential correlations | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | discrimination threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: discrimination threshold | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | factorial decoder Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: factorial decoder | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | correlation-blind decoder Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation-blind decoder | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | psychophysical threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: psychophysical threshold | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | decoder efficiency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: decoder efficiency | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | THE PROBABILITY THAT A NEURAL RESPONSE ASSOCIATED WITH ONE BEHAVIORAL CHOICE IS GREATER THAN A NEURAL RESPONSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OTHER POSSIBLE CHOICE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: choice probability | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE SIGNAL CHANGE REQUIRED TO EXCEED ONE STANDARD DEVIATION OF NOISE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: threshold | content_tags.definitions[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | noise correlations that MIMIC THE RELEVANT SIGNAL WHICH IS THE DIFFERENTIAL (DERIVATIVE) OF THE MEAN RESPONSES Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: differential correlations | content_tags.definitions[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | heading direction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: heading direction | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | decoding strategy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: decoding strategy | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | choice correlations, neural thresholds and behavioral thresholds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | fixation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fixation | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | choice correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: choice correlation | content_tags.variables[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: threshold | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | r =.26 — correlation between the optimal and correlation-blind predicted choice correlations in simulation, showing the two predictions are nearly independent 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 | 4/339 — recorded cells whose choice correlation was significantly negative, a proportion no greater than chance 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 =.10 — test of whether uninformative (very high threshold) neurons had non-zero choice correlations more often than chance 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 | 77% (75/97) — share of VN/CN neurons held long enough for at least 20 repetitions per stimulus (with 95% in MSTd and 69% in VIP) 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 | 30-fold — how much better than a single neuron behavior should be for 1000 optimally decoded neurons with extensive information — far better than observed 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 | 80% — efficiency of a decoder that reads out only the more informative of two correlated populations in the illustrated covariance case 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 | α =0.9 — simulation setting where 90% of the stimulus-estimate variance came from information-limiting correlations 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 | 0.1 to 0.5 — typical empirical range of c0, the proportionality between signal and noise correlations 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 | 500 — number of neurons in each simulated population Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Eight — rhesus monkeys implanted and recorded from Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 400 msec — spike-count window around peak movement velocity assumed to carry the decision-relevant signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | (50) ... (30 repetitions) — neurons and trials per stimulus used in the finite-data simulation, matched to the real experiments Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 4/339 — recorded cells whose negative choice correlation excluded zero - NOT SIGNIFICANT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | close to one — the regression coefficient on the optimal predictor in VN/CN, with the suboptimal coefficient near zero 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.