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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 6 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 | the structure of spontaneous and stimulus-evoked population activity in mouse visual cortex, and what the apparently noisy component of it encodes 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 | is cortical variability random noise, recapitulation of prior sensory experience, or encoding of ongoing behaviour 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 spontaneous activity reliably encodes a high-dimensional behavioural signal present brain-wide, and that sensory input adds to it in orthogonal dimensions rather than displacing it 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 | spontaneous cortical population activity and trial-to-trial response variability 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 | calcium-imaging Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: calcium-imaging | 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 | reliable variance is defined by double cross-validation: neurons split into two spatially separate sets, timepoints split into train and test, and only variance that covaries across both splits counts 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 | the behavioural regressor is not chosen in advance but discovered, by taking a thousand principal components of facial motion rather than naming which movements should matter 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 hand-picked arousal variables are shown to be redundant once the video is used, which is how the paper argues the old low-dimensional accounts were glimpses of something larger 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 | the paper states what its own method cannot see, and distinguishes its phenomenon from the fast one by a timescale its sampling rate excludes 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 claim of high dimensionality is stress-tested against sample size: reliability of higher components rises with neuron count, so the reported dimensionality is a floor 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 | decoding is used as the check on the subspace geometry - if stimulus information really is confined to one subspace, a classifier reading the others should fail 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 | the imaging result is repeated in a different preparation and a different recording modality, eight probes across forebrain, before the brain-wide claim is made Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a spatial null is run on the sorted activity continuum: position on it does not track position in the tissue, so the structure is not topographic 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 | trial-to-trial variability is decomposed into a multiplicative part inside the stimulus subspace and an additive part outside it, which is what lets a long-running either/or dispute be answered with both 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 multiplicative gain is not left as a fitted nuisance parameter but predicted from the behavioural video, tying the statistical model back to an observable 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 |
| mechanisms | the affine model is tested and rejected, so the absence of additive variability within the stimulus subspace is a checked result rather than an assumption Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The dimensionality estimate is bounded by the number of neurons recorded; larger populations would reveal still more dimensions. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the dimensionality figure, which is bounded by the recording and not by the brain: THE ESTIMATED RELIABILITY OF HIGHER SVCs INCREASED WITH THE NUMBER OF NEURONS ANALYZED ... RECORDINGS OF LARGER POPULATIONS WOULD IDENTIFY YET MORE DIMENSIONS | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The imaging frame rate (400 ms per cortical scan) makes fast up/down phases undetectable in this dataset. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any statement about up/down dynamics from this dataset: UP/DOWN PHASES COULD NOT EVEN HAVE BEEN DETECTED IN OUR RECORDINGS, WHICH SCANNED THE CORTEX EVERY 400 ms | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The unexplained dimensions of reliable variance are not identified; they may be motor activity invisible on the face or internal cognitive variables. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the behavioural account of the variance: THE REMAINING DIMENSIONS AND VARIANCE MIGHT IN PART REFLECT MOTOR ACTIVITY NOT VISIBLE ON THE FACE ... OR THEY MIGHT REFLECT INTERNAL COGNITIVE VARIABLES SUCH AS MOTIVATIONAL DRIVES | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the recording rate makes the fast up/down phenomenon undetectable in the imaging data 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] - the scan rate excludes the phenomenon rather than measuring it as absent | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | most of the reliable variance is still unexplained, and the paper offers two quite different candidates without deciding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - most of the reliable variance is unexplained, with two very different candidates offered and neither tested | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the dimensionality reported is bounded by the number of neurons recorded, not by the brain 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] - more neurons would give more dimensions | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the recapitulation account is not excluded, only shown to be unsupported by the similarity statistic on its own Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the recapitulation literature: OUR RESULTS DO NOT EXCLUDE THAT GENUINE RECAPITULATION COULD OCCUR IN OTHER BEHAVIORAL CIRCUMSTANCES, but EVEN A SINGLE DIMENSION OF COMMON RATE FLUCTUATION IS SUFFICIENT FOR SOME PREVIOUSLY-APPLIED STATISTICAL METHODS TO REPORT it | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | a train-test split applied simultaneously along two axes - cells and time - to define which variance counts as signal rather than relying on a noise model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | motion energy and its principal components, used to turn a video of a face into a thousand-dimensional behavioural regressor without deciding in advance which movements matter Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | reduced rank regression, used to ask how few behavioural dimensions suffice rather than how much total variance behaviour explains 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 | comparing recordings made in complete darkness against recordings made with a gray screen Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the spontaneous population activity is driven by visual input from the gray screen rather than being genuinely spontaneous · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | cross-validated stimulus decoding from the stimulus subspace compared against the spontaneous-only and behaviour-only subspaces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the spontaneous and behavioural dimensions carry the stimulus information, rather than being orthogonal to it · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | cortical variability - as random noise, as recapitulation of prior experience, or as encoding of behaviour; three incompatible readings of one measured quantity, named together by the authors 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 | variability - independent across cells (harmless to coding) versus correlated (harmful or not, depending on its geometry); the distinction that makes the orthogonality result matter 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 | correlated variability - mimicking stimulus differences, and so corrupting the code, versus lying orthogonal to them, and so carrying something else 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 | slow multi-second alternation between two sub-populations versus fast up/down phases modulating all neurons together; the same raster read at two timescales 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 | similarity between spontaneous and evoked activity - as evidence of replayed experience versus as a mean-rate artefact; the paper argues the statistic cannot distinguish them 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 | arousal as three hand-picked variables versus behaviour as a thousand videographic dimensions; the first turns out to be a projection of the second 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 | reliable variance - defined operationally as what survives a split across both cells and time, not as what exceeds a noise threshold 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 |
| alternatives | method: two-photon calcium imaging of over 10,000 neurons with simultaneous facial videography, cross-validated by a purpose-built shared-variance method, and replicated with eight simultaneous Neuropixels probes 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: calcium-imaging — 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: spontaneous cortical activity and trial-to-trial variability of sensory responses 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: spontaneous cortical population activity and trial-to-trial response variability — 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 → Previous reports of low-dimensional locomotion and arousal correlates in visual cortex (refs 8, 10-16, 33) 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 | contradicts → Studies reporting similarity between spontaneous activity and sensory responses as evidence for recapitulation of sensory experience (refs 2-7) 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 → Conflicting prior findings on whether cortical variability is additive or multiplicative (refs 39-42) 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 | critiques → studies inferring recapitulation of sensory experience from statistical similarity between spontaneous and evoked activity 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 | extends → reports of low-dimensional locomotion and arousal correlates in visual cortex, which the paper recasts as glimpses of a much larger set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → the resolution of the additive-versus-multiplicative dispute about cortical variability, by assigning each to a different subspace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the view that trial-to-trial variability in sensory cortex is primarily unstructured noise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the anatomical fact that primary sensory cortex receives both neuromodulatory state input and higher-order cortical input Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | spontaneous activity —distinct-from→ recapitulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.75
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the similarity 'need not imply recapitulation'; distinct-from is loose. also in: spontaneous activity · recapitulation | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | reliable variance —operationalised-as→ Shared Variance Component Analysis 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · stimulus-only subspace —distinct-from→ behavior-only subspace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span named neither subspace. This clause names both and states their independence, which is the distinctness the edge records. — strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: stimulus-only subspace · behavior-only subspace | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | facial motion —causes→ multiplicative gain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the gain 'could be predicted from' facial motion energy; causes is loose. also in: facial motion · multiplicative gain | concept_edges[7] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Shared Variance Components —operationalised-as→ reliable variance 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 'the first SVC'; the endpoint is a variant, and operationalised-as is loose. also in: Shared Variance Components · reliable variance | concept_edges[10] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | thalamus —part-of→ forebrain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span lists recorded regions; part-of 'forebrain' is not stated. | concept_edges[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon signed-rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon signed-rank test | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon rank-sum test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon rank-sum test | content_tags.statistics[1] | 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[2] | 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | principal component analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: principal component analysis | content_tags.statistics[4] | 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[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cross-validation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-validation | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | linear classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: linear classification | content_tags.statistics[7] | 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[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Shared Variance Component Analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Shared Variance Component Analysis | content_tags.statistics[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | reduced rank regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reduced rank regression | content_tags.statistics[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | power law Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: power law | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | two-sided Wilcoxon sign-rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: two-sided Wilcoxon sign-rank test | content_tags.statistics[12] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon rank-sum test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon rank-sum test | content_tags.statistics[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | cross-validated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-validated | content_tags.statistics[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Ongoing population activity in mouse visual cortex reliably encoded a latent signal of at least 100 linear dimensions. 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 single largest dimension of ongoing activity tracks arousal and drives roughly half the neurons up while driving the other half down, so it is not a global rate increase. 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 | A high-dimensional description of facial movement predicts about twice as much neural variance as the three standard arousal measures (running, pupil diameter and whisking) combined. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The same multidimensional behaviour-related activity structure is not confined to visual cortex but is present in neurons sampled across the forebrain. 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 | The stimulus and behaviour subspaces overlap primarily because both can change the population mean rate; the finer patterns of increase and decrease were essentially orthogonal. 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 | Stimulus identity can be decoded accurately from the stimulus-only subspace but not at all from the behaviour-only or spontaneous-only subspaces, which perform no better than random dimensions. 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 | Trial-to-trial response variability decomposes into multiplicative gain modulation inside the stimulus subspace plus additive ongoing activity in dimensions orthogonal to it. 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 | Thalamic neurons are the most strongly behaviour-modulated population recorded, with 35.7% of their total variance predictable from facial video. 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 | 97% of the variance in the first shared component was reliable, leaving 3% for independent noise 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 | reliable spontaneous variance decayed across dimensions as a power law of exponent 1.14, steeper than for stimulus responses but still high-dimensional 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 three explicit arousal variables together explained about half the variance of the first neural principal component 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 | about 57% of neurons correlated positively with the first PC and the rest negatively, so two sub-populations alternate 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 | multidimensional facial behaviour predicted roughly twice the variance the three arousal variables did 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 | prediction kept improving up to at least 16 behavioural dimensions, suggesting visual cortex encodes at least that many motor dimensions 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 | those dimensions captured 21% of total population variance against 11% for the three-variable model 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 | adding running, pupil and whisking to the video improved prediction by less than 1%, even though running is not visible in the face video 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 | every recorded brain area contained neurons across the whole activity continuum, so the structure is distributed rather than localised 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 | thalamic neurons were the best predicted by behaviour, at 35.7% of total variance 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 | behavioural prediction was best at zero lag and decayed over seconds, full width at half maximum 2.5 s 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 | stimulus and behaviour subspaces overlapped in essentially one dimension, which is the population mean rate 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 | a classifier decoded stimuli at 10% error from the stimulus subspace and at chance from the behaviour or spontaneous subspaces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the behaviour subspace was active before the stimulus and continued unchanged through it, while the stimulus subspace was silent then active Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a purely multiplicative trial-varying gain accounted for 89% of the variance in the stimulus subspace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[22] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | that gain was predictable from facial motion at r = 0.61 cross-validated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[23] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | adding an additive term to the multiplicative model did not significantly improve it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[24] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | stimulus and behaviour representations were mixed in the same neurons rather than carried by separate populations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[25] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | recordings in darkness and with a gray screen did not differ Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[26] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | position on the sorted activity continuum bore little relation to position in the tissue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[27] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Shared Variance Component Analysis (SVCA) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Shared Variance Components (SVCs) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Shared Variance Components (SVCs) | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | motion energy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: motion energy | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Shared Variance Component Analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Shared Variance Component Analysis | content_tags.definitions[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | up and down phases Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: up and down phases | content_tags.definitions[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | facial motion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: facial motion | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | visual stimulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: visual stimulation | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | dimensions of the video signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dimensions of the video signal | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | population activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: population activity | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | running speed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: running speed | content_tags.variables[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | facial motion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: facial motion | content_tags.variables[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | reliable variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reliable variance | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | time lag Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: time lag | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | multiplicative gain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiplicative gain | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | pupil area Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pupil area | content_tags.variables[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | whisking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: whisking | content_tags.variables[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 11,262 ± 2,282 — mean and s.d. of the number of excitatory neurons simultaneously imaged, over nine sessions in six mice 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 | 97% — fraction of the variance along the first shared variance component that was reliable rather than independent noise 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 | 1.14 — exponent of the power law by which reliable spontaneous variance decays across dimensions 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 | 21%± 1% SE — share of total population variance captured by the 16 predictive facial-behaviour dimensions (31% of the reliable variance) 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 | 10.1 ± 4.0 % — cross-validated error rate for decoding which of 32 natural images was shown, from the stimulus subspace 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 | 89% ± 0.1% SE — variance in the stimulus subspace explained by a purely multiplicative trial-gain model 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 | r = 0.61 ± 0.02 SE — cross-validated correlation between the per-trial multiplicative gain and its prediction from facial motion energy 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 | less than 1% — extra explained variance gained by adding running, pupil and whisking to the facial video predictors 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 | 11,262 ± 2,282 neurons — excitatory neurons imaged per session, over nine sessions in six mice 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 | 97% — reliable variance fraction of the first shared variance component 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 | exponent 1.14 — power law decay of reliable spontaneous variance across dimensions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 16 dimensions — behavioural dimensions at which neural prediction saturated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 21% ± 1% SE against 11% ± 1% SE — total variance explained by videographic behaviour versus the three arousal variables 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 | 35.7% — thalamic variance predicted from behaviour, the highest of any region 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 |
| content_tags | 2.5±0.4 s — full width at half maximum of the behavioural prediction across time lags Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 10.1 ± 4.0 % — stimulus decoding error from the stimulus subspace, against 53% and 57% from the others Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 89% ± 0.1% SE — variance in the stimulus subspace captured by a multiplicative gain model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | r = 0.61 ± 0.02 SE — cross-validated prediction of the trial gain from facial motion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 2,296, 2,668 and 1,462 units — units held stable for about an hour in the three electrophysiology mice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 57% ± 6.7% SE — share of neurons positively correlated with the first principal component Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[19] | 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.