[Comp-neuro] Review announcement
bower at uthscsa.edu
Fri Jul 18 15:56:07 CEST 2008
Haven't done this in a long time. But who says neurons are noisy?
From the point of view of information theory, why isn't the apperance of noise expected in a highly optimized coding scheme? And why isn't synchrony to be avoided as redundency. Engineers avoid it, why shouldn't evolution.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Nathan Urban <nurban at cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:41:22
To: <comp-neuro at neuroinf.org>
Subject: [Comp-neuro] Review announcement
This review describes a constructive role for noise in synchronizing
populations of neurons and should be of interest to computaional
Trends Neurosci. 2008 Jul 4. [Epub ahead of print]
Reliability, synchrony and noise.
Ermentrout GB, Galán RF, Urban NN.
The brain is noisy. Neurons receive tens of thousands of highly
fluctuating inputs and generate spike trains that appear highly
irregular. Much of this activity is spontaneous - uncoupled to overt
stimuli or motor outputs - leading to questions about the functional
impact of this noise. Although noise is most often thought of as
disrupting patterned activity and interfering with the encoding of
stimuli, recent theoretical and experimental work has shown that noise
can play a constructive role - leading to increased reliability or
regularity of neuronal firing in single neurons and across populations.
These results raise fundamental questions about how noise can influence
neural function and computation.
PMID: 18603311 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Comp-neuro mailing list
Comp-neuro at neuroinf.org
More information about the Comp-neuro