JN Add DOIs to your references at manuscript stage!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (July 5, 2007). doi:10.1152/jn.00559.2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
98/3/1064    most recent
00559.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Panzeri, S.
Right arrow Articles by Petersen, R. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Panzeri, S.
Right arrow Articles by Petersen, R. S.
Submitted on May 18, 2007
Accepted on July 2, 2007

Correcting for the sampling bias problem in spike train information measures

Stefano Panzeri1*, Riccardo Senatore1, Marcelo Alejandro Montemurro1, and Rasmus S. Petersen1

1 Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Stefano.Panzeri{at}manchester.ac.uk.

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 above. 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.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurosci.Home page
A. Belitski, A. Gretton, C. Magri, Y. Murayama, M. A. Montemurro, N. K. Logothetis, and S. Panzeri
Low-Frequency Local Field Potentials and Spikes in Primary Visual Cortex Convey Independent Visual Information
J. Neurosci., May 28, 2008; 28(22): 5696 - 5709.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
M. J. Rasch, A. Gretton, Y. Murayama, W. Maass, and N. K. Logothetis
Inferring Spike Trains From Local Field Potentials
J Neurophysiol, March 1, 2008; 99(3): 1461 - 1476.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2007 by the The American Physiological Society.