Cited by 333Neural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural Networks and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Probabilistic Interpretation of Population Codes

Open access

Abstract

We present a general encoding-decoding framework for interpreting the activity of a population of units. A standard population code interpretation method, the Poisson model, starts from a description as to how a single value of an underlying quantity can generate the activities of each unit in the population. In casting it in the encoding-decoding framework, we find that this model is too restrictive to describe fully the activities of units in population codes in higher processing areas, such as the medial temporal area. Under a more powerful model, the population activity can convey information not only about a single value of some quantity but also about its whole distribution, including its variance, and perhaps even the certainty the system has in the actual presence in the world of the entity generating this quantity. We propose a novel method for forming such probabilistic interpretations of population codes and compare it to the existing method.

Overview

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 · 10.1162/089976698300017818

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–331 of 331

Metadata

Authors
Zemel, R. S., Dayan, P., & Pouget, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Georgetown University (US)
Venue
Neural Computation
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
1998-02-01
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
403-430
ISSN
  • 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-888X
OpenAlex
W1985162039
Cited by
333
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 16
FWCI
4.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neural Computation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • Surdna Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (1r29mh055541-01)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R29 MH 55541-01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
Keywords
population coding, probabilistic interpretation, Poisson model, population activity, medial temporal lobe, neural coding, uncertainty representation
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Models, Neurological, Neurons, Probability, Models, Statistical, Poisson Distribution

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