Neural characterization in partially observed populations of spiking neurons

Point process encoding models provide powerful statistical methods for understanding the responses of neurons to sensory stimuli. Although these models have been successfully applied to neurons in the early sensory pathway, they have fared less well capturing the response properties of neurons in deeper brain areas, owing in part to the fact that they do not take into account multiple stages of processing. Here we introduce a new twist on the point-process modeling approach: we include unobserved as well as observed spiking neurons in a joint encoding model. The resulting model exhibits richer dynamics and more highly nonlinear response properties, making it more powerful and more flexible for fitting neural data. More importantly, it allows us to estimate connectivity patterns among neurons (both observed and unobserved), and may provide insight into how networks process sensory input. We formulate the estimation procedure using variational EM and the wake-sleep algorithm, and illustrate the model's performance using a simulated example network consisting of two coupled neurons.

[1]  Uri T Eden,et al.  A point process framework for relating neural spiking activity to spiking history, neural ensemble, and extrinsic covariate effects. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  A WilsonMatthew,et al.  Analyzing Functional Connectivity Using a Network Likelihood Model of Ensemble Neural Spiking Activity , 2005 .

[3]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  The "wake-sleep" algorithm for unsupervised neural networks. , 1995, Science.

[4]  T. Hunter,et al.  Organization of cell assemblies in the hippocampus , 2003 .

[5]  J. Csicsvari,et al.  Organization of cell assemblies in the hippocampus , 2003, Nature.

[6]  L. Paninski,et al.  Common-input models for multiple neural spike-train data , 2007, Network.

[7]  Wulfram Gerstner,et al.  Noise in Integrate-and-Fire Neurons: From Stochastic Input to Escape Rates , 2000, Neural Computation.

[8]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  A View of the Em Algorithm that Justifies Incremental, Sparse, and other Variants , 1998, Learning in Graphical Models.

[9]  E J Chichilnisky,et al.  A simple white noise analysis of neuronal light responses , 2001, Network.

[10]  Duane Q. Nykamp,et al.  Revealing Pairwise Coupling in Linear-Nonlinear Networks , 2005, SIAM J. Appl. Math..

[11]  D. Q. Nykamp,et al.  A mathematical framework for inferring connectivity in probabilistic neuronal networks. , 2007, Mathematical biosciences.

[12]  Michael J. Berry,et al.  Refractoriness and Neural Precision , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  L. Paninski Maximum likelihood estimation of cascade point-process neural encoding models , 2004, Network.

[14]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1984 .

[15]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  To appear in: The New Cognitive Neurosciences, 3rd edition Editor: M. Gazzaniga. MIT Press, 2004. Characterization of Neural Responses with Stochastic Stimuli , 2022 .

[16]  Duane Q. Nykamp,et al.  Reconstructing Stimulus-Driven Neural Networks from Spike Times , 2002, NIPS.

[17]  Emery N. Brown,et al.  A State-Space Analysis for Reconstruction of Goal-Directed Movements Using Neural Signals , 2006, Neural Computation.

[18]  Byron M. Yu,et al.  Extracting Dynamical Structure Embedded in Neural Activity , 2005, NIPS.

[19]  M. J. Korenberg,et al.  The identification of nonlinear biological systems: Wiener and Hammerstein cascade models , 1986, Biological Cybernetics.

[20]  M. Wilson,et al.  Analyzing Functional Connectivity Using a Network Likelihood Model of Ensemble Neural Spiking Activity , 2005, Neural Computation.

[21]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[22]  William Bialek,et al.  Adaptive Rescaling Maximizes Information Transmission , 2000, Neuron.

[23]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1992 .