The Effect of Nonstationarity on Models Inferred from Neural Data

TL;DR

This paper demonstrates that non-stationary external inputs can explain neural correlations better than inter-neuronal interactions, with machine learning methods effectively distinguishing these sources in neural data.

Contribution

It introduces a method to differentiate between correlations caused by non-stationary inputs and those from neural interactions using kinetic Ising model inference.

Findings

Non-stationary external input models outperform stationary models in explaining neural activity.

Adding couplings does not significantly improve the fit for salamander retinal data.

Robust couplings correlating with real connections are inferred in cortical data.

Abstract

Neurons subject to a common non-stationary input may exhibit a correlated firing behavior. Correlations in the statistics of neural spike trains also arise as the effect of interaction between neurons. Here we show that these two situations can be distinguished, with machine learning techniques, provided the data are rich enough. In order to do this, we study the problem of inferring a kinetic Ising model, stationary or nonstationary, from the available data. We apply the inference procedure to two data sets: one from salamander retinal ganglion cells and the other from a realistic computational cortical network model. We show that many aspects of the concerted activity of the salamander retinal neurons can be traced simply to the external input. A model of non-interacting neurons subject to a non-stationary external field outperforms a model with stationary input with couplings between neurons, even accounting for the differences in the number of model parameters. When couplings are added to the non-stationary model, for the retinal data, little is gained: the inferred couplings are generally not significant. Likewise, the distribution of the sizes of sets of neurons that spike simultaneously and the frequency of spike patterns as function of their rank (Zipf plots) are well-explained by an independent-neuron model with time-dependent external input, and adding connections to such a model does not offer significant improvement. For the cortical model data, robust couplings, well correlated with the real connections, can be inferred using the non-stationary model. Adding connections to this model slightly improves the agreement with the data for the probability of synchronous spikes but hardly affects the Zipf plot.