The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Correcting for the Sampling Bias Problem in Spike Train Information Measures
Abstract
Information Theory enables the quantification of how much information a neuronal response carries about external stimuli and is hence a natural analytic framework for studying neural coding. The main difficulty in its practical application to spike train analysis is that estimates of neuronal information from experimental data are prone to a systematic error (called “bias”). This bias is an inevitable consequence of the limited number of stimulus-response samples that it is possible to record in a real experiment. In this paper, we first explain the origin and the implications of the bias problem in spike train analysis. We then review and evaluate some recent general-purpose methods to correct for sampling bias: the Panzeri-Treves, Quadratic Extrapolation, Best Universal Bound, Nemenman-Shafee-Bialek procedures, and a recently proposed shuffling bias reduction procedure. Finally, we make practical recommendations for the accurate computation of information from spike trains. Our main recommendation is to estimate information using the shuffling bias reduction procedure in combination with one of the other four general purpose bias reduction procedures mentioned in the preceding text. This provides information estimates with acceptable variance and which are unbiased even when the number of trials per stimulus is as small as the number of possible discrete neuronal responses.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The information-theoretic neuroscience literature has long recognized the importance of correcting for the limited-sampling bias and has provided effective tools for correcting the Shannon information sampling bias.24,25,26,27,28”
From Sampling bias corrections for discrete and Gaussian partial information decompositions (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“This bias not only affects the accuracy of the estimate but can also skew comparisons between the information carried by simpler (less biased) and more complex (more biased) neural representations defined by a larger number of parameters.”
From Sampling bias corrections for discrete and Gaussian partial information decompositions (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“As previously reported,27,60 the plugin estimate of the joint Shannon information has an upward bias, which decreases with the number of samples N (Figures 1B and 2A [left]), increases with the number of discrete bins R, S of each source and target variable (Figure 2A, middle, where we keep R = S for simplicity), and decreases with the information level (Figure 2A, right).”
From Sampling bias corrections for discrete and Gaussian partial information decompositions (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“The direct calculation of information is very precise for small populations, but it does not scale up with population size.27”
From Sampling bias corrections for discrete and Gaussian partial information decompositions (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · Cited by 88,486
Neural correlations, population coding and computation
Averbeck, B. B., Latham, P. E., & Pouget, A. (2006) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1888 · Cited by 1,743
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1093/cercor/6.3.498 · DOI
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1389-04.2004 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030017 · DOI
- 10.1038/14731 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.275.5307.1805 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIT.2005.856954 · DOI
- 10.1152/jn.1998.79.3.1135 · DOI
- Hertz J , Panzeri S. Sensory coding and information transmission. In: The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks (2nd ed.), edited by Arbib MB. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002, p. 1023–1026.
- 10.1162/0899766053723050 · DOI
- 10.1162/089976603321192068 · DOI
- Miller GA . Note on the bias of information estimates. In: Information Theory in Psychology II-B , edited by Quastler H. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1955, p. 95–100.
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3417-06.2007 · DOI
- Montemurro MA , Senatore R, Panzeri S. Tight data-robust bounds to mutual information combining shuffling and model selection techniques. Neural Comput In press.
- 10.1007/s10827-005-1739-3 · DOI
- Nemenman I , Shafee F, Bialek W. Entropy and inference. In: Revisited Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by Dietterich TG, Becker S, and Ghahramani Z. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 202, vol. 14, p. 95–100, 2002.
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.056111 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/35079612 · DOI
- 10.1152/jn.1987.57.1.162 · DOI
- Paninski L . Estimation of entropy and mutual information. Neural Comput 5 : 1191–1253, 2003. · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1098/rspb.1999.0736 · DOI
- 10.1088/0954-898X/7/1/006 · DOI
- 10.1088/0954-898X/14/1/303 · DOI · Paper page
- Rieke F , Warland D, de Ruyter van Steveninck R, Bialek W. Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
- 10.1152/jn.1998.79.4.1797 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature04701 · DOI
- Strong SP , Koberle R, de Ruyter van Steveninck R, Bialek W. Entropy and information in neural spike trains. Phys Rev Lett 86 : 197–200, 1998. · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1162/neco.1995.7.2.399 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.051903 · DOI
- 10.1152/jn.1996.76.2.1310 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Equitability, mutual information, and the maximal information coefficient
Kinney, J. B., & Atwal, G. S. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1309933111 · Cited by 667
Influence of boundary removal on the spatial representations of the medial entorhinal cortex
Savelli, F., Yoganarasimha, D., & Knierim, J. J. (2008) · Hippocampus · doi:10.1002/hipo.20511 · Cited by 363
BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains
Jiang, L., Stocco, A., Losey, D. M., Abernethy, J. A., Prat, C. S., & Rao, R. P. N. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41895-7 · Cited by 190
Survey on Machine Learning Biases and Mitigation Techniques
Siddique, S., Haque, M. A., George, R., Gupta, K. D., Gupta, D., & Faruk, M. J. H. (2023) · Digital · doi:10.3390/digital4010001 · Cited by 78
Zick, J. L., Blackman, R. K., Crowe, D. A., Amirikian, B., DeNicola, A. L., Netoff, T. I., & Chafee, M. V. (2018) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.05.010 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Panzeri, S., Senatore, R., Montemurro, M. A., & Petersen, R. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2007-09
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1064-1072
- ISSN
- 0022-3077
- 1522-1598
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Correcting for the Sampling Bias Problem in Spike Train Information Measures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/jn.00559.2007
- The paper
- Panzeri, S., Senatore, R., Montemurro, M. A., & Petersen, R. S. (2007). Correcting for the Sampling Bias Problem in Spike Train Information Measures. Journal of Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00559.2007