Content deleted Content added
→Merger possibilities: Population coding has been merged |
Tag: |
||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=High}}
}}
== figure on the right? ==
Line 26 ⟶ 28:
== Merger possibilities ==
In the "see also" section of this page, there are seven other pages, each dealing with a specific theory of neural coding. Is it a good idea to have all these separate pages, or should we consider merging all of those other pages into this one (essentially making each one a section of this page, when that section does not already exist)? I'm not yet making a formal merger proposal, but just gaging what other editors think. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:I checked and none of these seven other pages are longer than an (elaborate) section. I would support a merger proposal. [[User:Lova_Falk|<
::I agree with you about that, and I now '''Support''' such a merger. I would consider it necessary to actually incorporate material from these other pages into this page, thereby expanding this page, for the merge to be appropriate. I'm going to formally template the pages, to discuss this proposal. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
: '''Support''' it's all neural coding, this is like having my grocery list on five different pieces of paper. ADDENDUM: to expand a bit, I think these are sufficiently notable topics to deserve their own page, but none of these pages are developed enough to merit that, they're basically all summaries like in the main neural coding page. But I agree with trypto that we should actually merge, not delete the others if the claims are cited or obviously true [[User:Xurtio|Xurtio]] ([[User talk:Xurtio|talk]]) 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC).
I think sparse coding can be merged into the neural codin as sparse coding is a type of neural coding and neurons are exclusively involved in the neural coding.
It's clear that the consensus supports this merge, and I apologize for being such a slowpoke, but I'll get around to it soon. Per the discussion below, I've added [[NeuroElectroDynamics]] to the proposed merger, but it should end up being no more than about one sentence here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 15:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
'''Argument against a merger with [[Sparse coding]]''': sparse coding and its derivatives (unsupervised learning of sparse representations) have become important in [[Machine learning|machine learning]], outside of the context of neural coding and the associated biological analogies. Examples of papers in that area include (Teh, Welling, Hinton & Osindero 2003, JMLR), (Lee, Battle, Raina & Ng, NIPS'2006), (Ranzato, Poultney & LeCun, NIPS'2006), (Elard & Aharon 2006, IEEE Trans. Image Proc.), (Ranzato, Boureau & LeCun, NIPS'2007), (Grosse, Raina, Kwong & Ng, UAI 2007), (Kavukcuoglu, Ranzato & LeCun 2008, tech. rep.), (Lee, Ekanadham & Ng, NIPS 2007), (Bradley & Bagnell, NIPS'2008), David Bradley's PhD thesis (2009).
:Hmmm... In its present form, [[sparse coding]] says nothing about that. Perhaps a spinout article dealing with the machine aspects would be the way to go? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 44 ⟶ 46:
'''Population coding has been merged''' --[[User:Iamozy|Iamozy]] ([[User talk:Iamozy|talk]]) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
'''Correlation coding and Independent-spike coding have been merged''' under the Population coding subsection. --[[User:Iamozy|Iamozy]] ([[User talk:Iamozy|talk]]) 16:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
'''Phase-of-firing code has been merged''' under the Temporal coding subsection. --[[User:Iamozy|Iamozy]] ([[User talk:Iamozy|talk]]) 16:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
From the "Department of Extreme [[WP:There is no deadline]]", (sorry), I've just reverted someone's removal of the remaining merge tags, because I still think that the remaining merges should eventually be performed. Arguments made in the interim notwithstanding, the fact remains that having separate pages ends up being content forks, because there is no definitive science about how coding really takes place. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
:If I removed the tags in error, then I apologise. However, reading the above discussion, there was no clear consensus in over 4 years. I think it's time to either boldly do it yourself, or remove the tags. --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 06:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks, I understand. But, as I said, there is no deadline (and, for better or, mostly, for worse, I've been preoccupied with other things). As you can see just above, another editor has been doing most of the merges, and it just happened that you came along in the middle of that process. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
'''Sparse coding has been merged''' The entire article is written in the context of the human brain and neuron coding, so I think it's relevant to add this here. I will leave the page unchanged for some time, if anyone has issues with this merge. --[[User:Iamozy|Iamozy]] ([[User talk:Iamozy|talk]]) 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:No issues from me. Thanks! --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
'''Temporal coding has been merged''' --[[User:Iamozy|Iamozy]] ([[User talk:Iamozy|talk]]) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
[[sparse coding]] should not be merged into this page. Just Google "Sparse coding", on the first page are all related to machine learning & computer vision field. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/118.169.195.190|118.169.195.190]] ([[User talk:118.169.195.190|talk]]) 16:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It's already been merged. If there is encyclopedic content unrelated to the nervous system (ie, machine learning), then that should probably be covered on another page. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
*The remaining pages that have yet to be merged here are [[Neuroelectrodynamics]] and [[Neural ensemble]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
'''Neuroelectrodynamics''' has been merged. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
== Removing new NeuroElectroDynamics section ==
Line 72 ⟶ 94:
:::Concerning Looie496 position regarding neuroscience labs ( including Graybiel's lab) we should see the difference between experimental data processing and computational theoretical models. Few neuroscience labs have generated new computational theories! Importantly, good statistics on a wrong model (temporal coding model) does not make the science better doesn’t matter where is published. Experimentally, we are at the beginning of understanding the effect of electric field (endogenous field, ephaptic coupling) in computation. Regarding the second subject neural coding and NED are not equivalent, temporal coding models can be derived as particular examples of NED with no real predictive power, semantics or significance.[[User:Giovannistefano35|Giovannistefano35]] ([[User Giovannistefano35:Giovannistefano35|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 18:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Giovannistefano I completely agree. I just added that link to show that bad statistics is published in high-impact journals, however indeed, statistical significance doesn't matter if the basic model of [[temporal coding]] is an epiphenomenon <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Goodwillein|Goodwillein]] ([[User talk:Goodwillein|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Goodwillein|contribs]]) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I've made it a single sentence, which I think is the appropriate [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
== "Neuronal code"? ==
Line 77 ⟶ 101:
Is "Neuronal code" yet another term that belongs here? Any difference with "neural code"? Cf. [https://www.coursera.org/course/bluebrain Synapses, Neurons and Brains | Coursera] [[User:Nealmcb|★NealMcB★]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:No difference. The term "neuronal code" is not used very often, though. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 07:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::Good to know. And I created redirects from ''neuronal code'' and ''neuronal coding'' to this article. [[User:Lova_Falk|<
==It's all hypothetical==
So far, so one has shown how a particular percept, memory, or thought has been "encoded" in a network of neurons. It's all just speculation. I hate to see a major section of the article headed "coding schemes", as if scientists actually know what the codes are. Maybe someday, we'll know and can even read or alter the program as in the sci-fi thriller [[Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind]]. But let's not give the reader the impression that '''we''' know this, but '''they''' just don't understand. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 11:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
:That's a good point, and I agree with you. Some time back, we actually had standalone pages for each of these hypotheses, so it's better to have them all on one page, and your re-labeling them as hypothetical is a good improvement. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
==Population coding==
Is population coding and distributed coding the same definition? According to [https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=CHvxCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=distributed+coding+psychology&source=bl&ots=goH3Nh9n_W&sig=2D3JGshZ1Ng_3nNJr6473oyxatw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZoqGbkJTXAhVLUlAKHabJB9MQ6AEIPzAD#v=onepage&q=distributed%20coding%20psychology&f=false Cognitive Psychology by E. Bruce Goldstein] the definition of distributed coding matches population coding. Could we perhaps add that to the text? Or is it something entirely different/obsolete. Kind regards. --[[User:WWETrishMickiefan|WWETrishMickiefan]] ([[User talk:WWETrishMickiefan|talk]]) 20:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing that up. I have to admit that distributed coding (in the context of neural coding) is a new term to me. But doing a quick search, it does seem to be widely used. On a quick read, it sounds to me more like there is a spectrum with distributed coding at one end and sparse coding at the other. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
::I think the basic difference is that "population coding" is a term used by experimentalists who study neural activity in animals by recording from groups of neurons, whereas "distributed coding" is a term used by theoreticians. At least, that's my impression. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 23:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I had the impression from what I saw that distributed was more often mentioned in the context of psychology rather than neuroscience. I'm not sure what, if anything, we should do with the page. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
== External links modified (February 2018) ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on [[Neural coding]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/825972569|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215151304/http://pop.cerco.ups-tlse.fr/fr_vers/documents/thorpe_sj_90_91.pdf to http://pop.cerco.ups-tlse.fr/fr_vers/documents/thorpe_sj_90_91.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
== Proposed merge with [[Brain code]] ==
It appears to me that the article [[brain code]] should be merged into [[neural coding]]; from what I can tell, they appear to be different terms for the same thing. I am certainly not an expert in the field, so please let me know if this is not the case. If so, perhaps [[brain code]] could be expanded to specify the difference? [[User:Jmertel23|Jmertel23]] ([[User talk:Jmertel23|talk]]) 19:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' for merge. I hadn't realized that the [[brain code]] page exists. It's nothing more than a somewhat stilted alternative name for neural coding. Maybe a little of it could be merged to make a History section of this page, but otherwise it's pretty much a candidate for a redirect to here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
== Multiple issues: POV and original research ==
Recent edits have overhauled much of the article which appears to now present a biased point of view discrediting other approaches and supporting the 'Symphonic Neural Code' hypothesis of Stanislav Tregub. Identified issues are listed below which would need to be approached by someone with more knowledge on the subject area.
===POV===
1. The article has been converted into a systemic attack on other approaches.
2. It is lacking in other references supporting 'Symphonic Neural Code' (hereafter SNC).
3. It does not include any critique of SNC.
4. It does not adequately present which hypotheses have mainstream support and which are not currently generally accepted, or beginning to gain acceptance.
===Original research===
5. Parts of the article appear to be lightly modified from a non-peer reviewed preprint article by Stanislav Tregub, which can be found [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357182274_Reading_the_Music_of_the_Brain_Symphonic_Neural_Code_Hypothesis here], which implies SNC is original research. I haven't checked the book by the same author, but although it is referenced towards the end of the article, it likely also would fall into the category of original research and as such the article lacks any peer reviewed citations on the SNC hypothesis. [[User:Terovian|Terovian]] ([[User talk:Terovian|talk]]) 08:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
: {{u|Terovian}}, I haven't looked through the whole article but the "Perspectives" section is horrible. I added a template to the section to flag that. Thanks for noting all this. The book is self-published and part of a series of eight self-published books. Tregub describes himself as an independent researcher. The Wikipedia editor who made the large recent changes hasn't edited any other pages at all, so potentially could be Tregub. In that case I agree this would effectively be [[WP:OR]], and if not it at least goes against [[WP:SPS]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Maybe somebody with rollback priviliges could revert to an earlier version? [[User:Gazelle55|Gazelle55]] ([[User talk:Gazelle55|talk]]) 23:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
::I've reverted the article per your suggestions. Can't believe it took so long for someone to fix this. [[User:Raelyks|Raelyks]] ([[User talk:Raelyks|talk]]) 21:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
==Wiki Education assignment: INFO 200 Selected Topics in Information Literacy - Wikipedia==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_East_Bay/INFO_200_Selected_Topics_in_Information_Literacy_-_Wikipedia_(Spring_2022) | assignments = [[User:Man6506|Man6506]] | start_date = 2022-01-19 | end_date = 2022-05-13 }}
== Removal of Non-credible Information- Potential complete rollback? ==
After examining this page carefully, I believe there is good reason to rollback this entire page to its state prior to the first edit of [[User:Stastr1]]. This user appears to have vandalized this page with information from blatantly non-credible sources, which are quite possibly their own [[Wikipedia:OR]].
Based on concerns other users have voiced previously, I have removed the "Symphonic Neural Code" section from this article entirely. The term "symphonic neural code" does not seem to appear anywhere other than in the works of an individual named "Stanislav Tregub".
As others have pointed out, material in this article appears to be copied with minor modification from [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357182274_Reading_the_Music_of_the_Brain_Symphonic_Neural_Code_Hypothesis this article on researchgate] written by Tregub. The site explicitly warns that the article is almost certainly not peer reviewed, and Tregub's profile page describes him as an "independent researcher" , mentioning no credentials or affiliation with any educational/research institution whatsoever, much less an entity which specializes in neuroscience.
The article itself cites only 4 sources, a remarkably low number for a research paper purporting to describe an entirely novel theory of how the brain encodes information. Any peer reviewed paper of comparable scope produced by a reputable entity would typically be expected to have ''multiple pages'' of citations, a fact which casts further doubt on the rigorousness and credibility of Tregub's paper. Moreover, one of Tregub's four sources is apparently ''his own website'' (source four), a violation of the most basic best practices of citation itself. Additionally, references in the article are made to Tregub's books, which are self published according to the ''[https://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Mind-Teleological-Transduction-Symphony/dp/B09BZYBP3Y Amazon Page]'' (which is being used as A CITATION IN THE ARTICLE, potentially directing unsuspecting readers to purchase Tregub's work)
For these reasons, it is abundantly clear that these works do not meet the standard of [[Wikipedia:Credibility]], and thus overt mention of their content has been removed entirely.
However, other users have pointed out that the entirety of this article has been edited to cast doubt on competing theories, and contains numerous instances of opinionated language and deviations from encyclopedic style. These changes appear to have been added by [[User:Stastr1]] over the course of several days in late December 2021, a fact that can clearly viewed in the revision history. In particular, [[User:Stastr1]] added the entire "Symphonic Neural Code" section unilaterally in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neural_coding&type=revision&diff=1062618048&oldid=1062604722 this revision] . Interestingly, the previously mentioned [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357182274_Reading_the_Music_of_the_Brain_Symphonic_Neural_Code_Hypothesis paper] from which much of this article's post-stastr1 content appears to be plagiarized was published in December 2021. Furthermore, a review of [[User:Stastr1]]'s [[Special:Contributions/Stastr1|contribution page]] reveals that they appear to only have ever edited the Neural Coding page and the Binding Problem page. Examining Tregub's researchgate profile, it is quite easy to discover that he has also uploaded [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359685771_Harmonious_Solution_to_the_Binding_Problem another un-peer reviewed, but admittedly slightly more thoroughly sourced paper on the binding problem]. This paper was published in April 2022. In the final days of March 2022,[[User:Stastr1]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binding_problem&type=revision&diff=1079572302&oldid=1068140372 added a considerable amount of information to the binding problem article.] If one compares the first major chunk of text [[User:Stastr1]] added to the article (beginning with "We perceive the world as a diverse but coherent structure.") to the paper published by Tregub on the subject, it is clear they are identical. In summary, the user that vandalized this article has only ever contributed to two wikipedia articles, and each time they ripped portions from papers by an obscure nobody with no expertise on the subject at hand. These facts establish a reasonable suspicion that [[User:Stastr1]] may be Tregub himself, although this is difficult to conclusively verify. Assuming it was, it is an astonishing instance of original research, and I am quite surprised that it was allowed to remain in the article unchecked for nearly a year.
Regardless of [[User:Stastr1]]'s identity, however, one thing is absolutely clear: They have committed an extraordinarily egregious act of vandalism on this article. As I have written this justification, I have become more convinced that the article needs to be completely rolled back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neural_coding&oldid=1059488854 the last revision prior to the vandalism,] which I will do promptly. I understand that there have been legitimate contributions made since, but these seem to be minor clerical corrections to what is still fundamentally misinformation. Overall, it is clear that nothing has been done to rectify the substance of the vandalism, which is extensive and would be extremely time-consuming to root out manually. As such, Reversion appears to be the best option for quickly returning this article to something at least half-way informative. [[User:Raelyks|Raelyks]] ([[User talk:Raelyks|talk]]) 21:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
== Farfetched theories stated as fact ==
the section "Non-spike ultramicro-coding (for advanced intelligence)" seems to state many things as fact, and makes many startling claims, I think an expert should take a look and possibly remove it [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27|2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27]] ([[User talk:2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27|talk]]) 12:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27|@2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27]] one of the sources is even from a journal called "Speculations in Science and Technology," the claims should be toned down at the very least [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27|2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27]] ([[User talk:2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27|talk]]) 12:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
::Significantly the ''Speculations'' paper ('''1988''') has since been vindicated experimentally: Sun et al (2010), and Zangari et al (2021). [[User:Tegiap|Tegiap]] ([[User talk:Tegiap|talk]]) 04:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
:The relevant type of "expert" here would be an up-to-date epistemologist (Knowledge Theorist), such as Paul Thagard or Susan Haack. (Actually the main ideas here are NOT presented as "facts" but as well-supported ''hypotheses'', based on indirect published evidence -- difficult-or-impossible to observe directly. Meanwhile they are part of the only plausible account after >50 years of unsolved mystery regarding ''advanced'' cognition). [[User:Tegiap|Tegiap]] ([[User talk:Tegiap|talk]]) 04:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
:This entire section instantly smells of subjective original research, and the moment one's flavor of "philosophy of science" is invoked; it becomes hardcore pseudoscience. This section needs to be removed on grounds of OR and speculative crystal-balling on the wiki. A jarring break in tone and content from the rest of the article... and a hotspot for fringe discussion of unscientific ideologies.
:P.S
:There is no need for an expert here, as the section does not cite acceptable sources, nor makes any scientifically scrutable claim. And from the perspective of biophysics; this has no grounding whatsoever. [[Special:Contributions/2001:861:44C1:E970:78C8:5555:3D95:B21E|2001:861:44C1:E970:78C8:5555:3D95:B21E]] ([[User talk:2001:861:44C1:E970:78C8:5555:3D95:B21E|talk]]) 13:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The far-fetched theory is crackpot for the simple reason that binary-latent models in artificial intelligence, such as int LLMs, achieve what we would call intelligence as per the Turing test with two and more orders of magnitude fewer connections than the ones observed in the human brain. Therefore, as there is no need to explain a gap in the current model's capacity for intelligent behaviour, this theory has no legs to stand on. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A01:C22:B4CB:9800:2984:3A37:5405:2222|2A01:C22:B4CB:9800:2984:3A37:5405:2222]] ([[User talk:2A01:C22:B4CB:9800:2984:3A37:5405:2222#top|talk]]) 02:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
| |||