Cited by 316Neural dynamics and brain functionNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and Adaptation

Not Noisy, Just Wrong: The Role of Suboptimal Inference in Behavioral Variability

Open access
Beck, Jeffrey M., Ma, Wei Ji, Pitkow, Xaq, Latham, Peter E., Pouget, Alexandre·2012·Neuron

Abstract

Behavior varies from trial to trial even when the stimulus is maintained as constant as possible. In many models, this variability is attributed to noise in the brain. Here, we propose that there is another major source of variability: suboptimal inference. Importantly, we argue that in most tasks of interest, and particularly complex ones, suboptimal inference is likely to be the dominant component of behavioral variability. This perspective explains a variety of intriguing observations, including why variability appears to be larger on the sensory than on the motor side, and why our sensors are sometimes surprisingly unreliable.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.016

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The representational capacity required for full Bayesian inference exceeds what could plausibly be implemented in neural tissue, particularly for continuous variables with theoretically infinite possible states.

    “The representational capacity required exceeds what could plausibly be implemented in neural tissue, particularly for continuous variables with theoretically infinite possible states (Beck et al. 2012; Fiser et al. 2010).”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Beck et al. 2012

    In “Why Suboptimal Inference Is Inevitable” (page unavailable), the paper says optimal Bayesian inference requires computing a posterior distribution and that exact inference for many problems can be computationally intractable. It does not attribute that difficulty to insufficient neural representational capacity or discuss continuous variables having infinitely many possible states. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beck, J. M., Ma, W. J., Pitkow, X., Latham, P. E., & Pouget, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Pouget, Alexandre
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
74
Issue
1
Pages
30-39
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144984120
Cited by
316
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 3
FWCI
10.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0446730, 1132009)
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (N00014-07-1-0937)
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY020958)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
behavioral variability, trial-to-trial variability, neural noise, sensory uncertainty, sensor reliability, Bayesian inference, perceptual decision making
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Brain, Field Dependence-Independence, Humans, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Neurons, Perceptual Masking, Sensation, Reproducibility of Results, Uncertainty, Behavioral Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review