Cited by 1,743Neural dynamics and brain functionstochastic dynamics and bifurcationMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Neural correlations, population coding and computation

Averbeck, Bruno B., Latham, Peter E., Pouget, Alexandre·2006·Nature reviews. Neuroscience

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrn1888

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Under conditions where single neurons are noisy and unreliable or when diverse stimulus features need to be integrated, population coding can be more effective.

    “Under conditions where single neurons are noisy and unreliable or when diverse stimulus features need to be integrated, population coding can be more effective (Averbeck et al., 2006).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Averbeck, B. B., Latham, P. E., & Pouget, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Pouget, Alexandre
Venue
Nature reviews. Neuroscience
Published
2006-05
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
358-366
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W1998050452
Cited by
1,743
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 78 · 2025: 103 · 2024: 123 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 127 · 2018: 109 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 105 · 2015: 102 · 2014: 89 · 2013: 96 · 2012: 77
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › stochastic dynamics and bifurcation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
neural correlations, neural noise, population coding, population activity, neural computation, neural variability, multi-electrode recording, information encoding
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Brain, Humans, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Neurons, Neural Networks, Computer

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