2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2015.05.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Questioning the role of sparse coding in the brain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
116
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(130 citation statements)
references
References 86 publications
8
116
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is sufficient for our theory because granule cells represent heterogeneous combinations of mossy-fiber input relevant to the classification performed by their postsynaptic Purkinje cells, which are unlikely to require all possible input combinations. Some studies have suggested that granule-cell input is more homogeneous (Jörntell and Ekerot, 2006; Bengtsson and Jörntell, 2009) and that granule cells function as noise filters (Ekerot and Jörntell, 2008) or improve generalization (Spanne and Jörntell, 2015). However, even when we impose a corresponding level of similarity of tuning in our cerebellar cortex model, the synaptic degree that maximizes dimension is still small ( K ≤ 4), although the dimension of the resulting representation is reduced (Figure S7).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is sufficient for our theory because granule cells represent heterogeneous combinations of mossy-fiber input relevant to the classification performed by their postsynaptic Purkinje cells, which are unlikely to require all possible input combinations. Some studies have suggested that granule-cell input is more homogeneous (Jörntell and Ekerot, 2006; Bengtsson and Jörntell, 2009) and that granule cells function as noise filters (Ekerot and Jörntell, 2008) or improve generalization (Spanne and Jörntell, 2015). However, even when we impose a corresponding level of similarity of tuning in our cerebellar cortex model, the synaptic degree that maximizes dimension is still small ( K ≤ 4), although the dimension of the resulting representation is reduced (Figure S7).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there is a debate on the pattern of convergence of mossy fiber information in individual granule cells, at least for limb controlling areas of the cerebellar cortex mossy fiber information from individual functional pathways is directly transmitted through granule cells and reflected in the output of the Purkinje cells [92, 93]. In this case, there is an unconditional transmission of information through the granule layer from individual functional pathways, which means that the information carried by these pathways can be integrated by the Purkinje cell without being dependent on concomitant input from other mossy fiber systems in contrast to what was assumed in the original Marr-Albus theory of cerebellar information processing [94]. …”
Section: Spinocerebellar Circuitry—consequences For the Organization mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Within the primate prefrontal cortex, the representation of particular spatial locations within spatial working memory depends on the selective activation of particular layer 3 neurons and their associated microcolumns as well as the interneuron-mediated inhibition of neighboring neurons and microcolumns representing competing locations (87, 88). The restriction of activity to a small minority of potential neurons is called sparse coding (89) and its integrity depends on inhibition (90). The interneurons mediating the spatial dispersion of pyramidal neuron activitation are specific to cell type and layer.…”
Section: Deficits In Spatial Tuning Of Cortical Activity and Impairmementioning
confidence: 99%