The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Local vs. Distributed Coding
Abstract
The question of how information can be represented in networks of neurons is central to cognitive science - especially so now that some researchers are turning to connectionist models in an attempt to understand human cognition. A major distinction can be made between local coding schemes, in which each unit is assigned a particular meaning, and distributed coding, in which information is encoded by large numbers of units, each of which is involved in representing many different concepts. Many brain scientists dislike local coding schemes, but it is argued here that the arguments generally invoked against local coding are far from convincing. There are situations where it has been shown that the brain does use a form of distributed coding, often referred to as coarse coding, which is particularly useful for representing continuous variables during sensory and motor processing. However, it may be appropriate to think of the brain as a hybrid system, using more local codes for higher level representation. Such a view has the advantage of allowing more conventional symbol manipulation based artificial intelligence approaches to be integrated into a connectionist framework.
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?
Feature superposition is not a novel idea; previous interpretability papers have speculated about it, and it is closely related to compressed sensing and distributed, dense, and population codes.
“Feature superposition isn't a novel idea. A number of previous interpretability papers have speculated about it , and it's very closely related to the long-studied topic of compressed sensing in mathematics , as well as the ideas of distributed, dense, and population codes in neuroscience and deep learning .”
From Toy Models of Superposition (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Elhage, N., Hume, T., Olsson, C., Schiefer, N., Henighan, T., Kravec, S., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Lasenby, R., Drain, D., Chen, C., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.10652 · Cited by 51
Causal Abstraction: A Theoretical Foundation for Mechanistic Interpretability
Geiger, A., Ibeling, D., Zur, A., Chaudhary, M., Chauhan, S., Huang, J., Arora, A., Wu, Z., Goodman, N., Potts, C., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.04709 · Cited by 11
Improving Dictionary Learning with Gated Sparse Autoencoders
Rajamanoharan, S., Conmy, A., Smith, L., Lieberum, T., Varma, V., Kramár, J., Shah, R., & Nanda, N. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.16014 · Cited by 3
“For example, sparse coding (Elad, 2010) studies how discrete and continuous representations can involve more representations than basis vectors, like our setup in Section 1, and sparse representations are also studied in neuroscience (Olshausen and Field, 1997; Thorpe, 1989).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Thorpe, S.
- Corresponding author
- Thorpe, Simon
- ORCID
- Thorpe, Simon
- Venue
- Intellectica. Revue de l'Association pour la Recherche Cognitive
- Publisher
- PERSEE Program
- Published
- 1989
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 3-40
- ISSN
- 0769-4113 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2900442071
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- fr
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Intellectica Revue de l Association pour la Recherche Cognitive (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Computing and Networks
- Keywords
- distributed coding, coarse coding, neural representations, connectionist models, hybrid systems, symbolic computation, artificial intelligence integration
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