Cited by 1,237Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain functionMultisensory perception and integration

Correlated neuronal discharge rate and its implications for psychophysical performance

Zohary, Ehud, Shadlen, Michael N., Newsome, William T.·1994·Nature

Abstract

Single neurons can signal subtle changes in the sensory environment with surprising fidelity, often matching the perceptual sensitivity of trained psychophysical observers. This similarity poses an intriguing puzzle: why is psychophysical sensitivity not greater than that of single neurons? Pooling responses across neurons should average out noise in the activity of single cells, leading to substantially improved psychophysical performance. If, however, noise is correlated among these neurons, the beneficial effects of pooling would be diminished. To assess correlation within a pool, the responses of pairs of neurons were recorded simultaneously during repeated stimulus presentations. We report here that the observed covariation in spike count was relatively weak, the correlation coefficient averaging 0.12. A theoretical analysis revealed, however, that weak correlation can limit substantially the signalling capacity of the pool. In addition, theory suggests a relationship between neuronal responses and psychophysical decisions which may prove useful for identifying cell populations underlying specific perceptual capacities.

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 · 10.1038/370140a0

Cites

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 influence of a single neuron on the probability of a post-decision wager is expected to be small because it is one member of a large population of neurons that govern behavior.

    “The influence of a single neuron on the probability of a post-decision wager is expected to be small because it is but one member of a large population of neurons that govern the behavior, presumably (33–35).”

Self-check

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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zohary, E., Shadlen, M. N., & Newsome, W. T.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
Nature
Published
1994-07
Volume
370
Issue
6485
Pages
140-143
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2004478098
Cited by
1,237
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 60
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
neuronal discharge rate, spike count correlations, sensory coding, neural noise, signal detection, perceptual decision making, single neuron responses, population coding
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Discrimination, Psychological, Fixation, Ocular, Macaca mulatta, Mathematics, Neurons, Afferent, Psychomotor Performance, Temporal Lobe, Visual Pathways, Visual Perception

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