Recent psychophysical experiments indicate that humans perform near-optimal Bayesian inference in a wide variety of tasks, ranging from cue integration to decision making to motor control. This implies that neurons both represent probability distributions and combine those distributions according to a close approximation to Bayes' rule. At first sight, it would seem that the high variability in the responses of cortical neurons would make it difficult to implement such optimal statistical inference in cortical circuits. We argue that, in fact, this variability implies that populations of neurons automatically represent probability distributions over the stimulus, a type of code we call probabilistic population codes. Moreover, we demonstrate that the Poisson-like variability observed in cortex reduces a broad class of Bayesian inference to simple linear combinations of populations of neural activity. These results hold for arbitrary probability distributions over the stimulus, for tuning curves of arbitrary shape and for realistic neuronal variability.

How the brain encodes information in population activity, and how it combines and manipulates that activity as it carries out computations, are questions that lie at the heart of systems neuroscience. During the past decade, with the advent of multi-electrode recording and improved theoretical models, these questions have begun to yield answers. However, a complete understanding of neuronal variability, and, in particular, how it affects population codes, is missing. This is because variability in the brain is typically correlated, and although the exact effects of these correlations are not known, it is known that they can be large. Here, we review studies that address the interaction between neuronal noise and population codes, and discuss their implications for population coding in general.

In everyday life, many people believe that two heads are better than one. Our ability to solve problems together appears to be fundamental to the current dominance and future survival of the human species. But are two heads really better than one? We addressed this question in the context of a collective low-level perceptual decision-making task. For two observers of nearly equal visual sensitivity, two heads were definitely better than one, provided they were given the opportunity to communicate freely, even in the absence of any feedback about decision outcomes. But for observers with very different visual sensitivities, two heads were actually worse than the better one. These seemingly discrepant patterns of group behavior can be explained by a model in which two heads are Bayes optimal under the assumption that individuals accurately communicate their level of confidence on every trial.

Computational strategies used by the brain strongly depend on the amount of information that can be stored in population activity, which in turn strongly depends on the pattern of noise correlations. In vivo, noise correlations tend to be positive and proportional to the similarity in tuning properties. Such correlations are thought to limit information, which has led to the suggestion that decorrelation increases information. In contrast, we found, analytically and numerically, that decorrelation does not imply an increase in information. Instead, the only information-limiting correlations are what we refer to as differential correlations: correlations proportional to the product of the derivatives of the tuning curves. Unfortunately, differential correlations are likely to be very small and buried under correlations that do not limit information, making them particularly difficult to detect. We found, however, that the effect of differential correlations on information can be detected with relatively simple decoders.

There is strong behavioral and physiological evidence that the brain both represents probability distributions and performs probabilistic inference. Computational neuroscientists have started to shed light on how these probabilistic representations and computations might be implemented in neural circuits. One particularly appealing aspect of these theories is their generality: they can be used to model a wide range of tasks, from sensory processing to high-level cognition. To date, however, these theories have only been applied to very simple tasks. Here we discuss the challenges that will emerge as researchers start focusing their efforts on real-life computations, with a focus on probabilistic learning, structural learning and approximate inference.

When making a decision, one must first accumulate evidence, often over time, and then select the appropriate action. Here, we present a neural model of decision making that can perform both evidence accumulation and action selection optimally. More specifically, we show that, given a Poisson-like distribution of spike counts, biological neural networks can accumulate evidence without loss of information through linear integration of neural activity, and can select the most likely action through attractor dynamics. This holds for arbitrary correlations, any tuning curves, continuous and discrete variables, and sensory evidence whose reliability varies over time. Our model predicts that the neurons in the lateral intraparietal cortex involved in evidence accumulation encode, on every trial, a probability distribution which predicts the animal’s performance. We present experimental evidence consistent with this prediction, and discuss other predictions applicable to more general settings.

No abstract

It is well known that neural activity exhibits variability, in the sense that identical sensory stimuli produce different responses, but it has been difficult to determine what this variability means. Is it noise, or does it carry important information – about, for example, the internal state of the organism? We address this issue from the bottom up, by asking whether small perturbations to activity in cortical networks are amplified. Based on in vivo whole-cell recordings in rat barrel cortex, we find that a perturbation consisting of a single extra spike in one neuron produces ~28 additional spikes in its postsynaptic targets, and we show, using simultaneous intra- and extra-cellular recordings, that a single spike produces a detectable increase in firing rate in the local network. Theoretical analysis indicates that this amplification leads to intrinsic, stimulus-independent variations in membrane potential on the order of ±2.2 - 4.5 mV – variations that are pure noise, and so carry no information at all. Therefore, for the brain to perform reliable computations, it must either use a rate code, or generate very large, fast depolarizing events, such as those proposed by the theory of synfire chains – yet in our in vivo recordings, we found that such events were very rare. Our findings are consistent with the idea that cortex is likely to use primarily a rate code.