Rxivist combines preprints from bioRxiv with data from Twitter to help you find the papers being discussed in your field. Currently indexing 67,594 bioRxiv papers from 298,144 authors.
Modern machine learning outperforms GLMs at predicting spikes
Ari S. Benjamin,
Hugo L. Fernandes,
Konrad Paul Kording
Posted 24 Feb 2017
bioRxiv DOI: 10.1101/111450 (published DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2018.00056)
Posted 24 Feb 2017
Neuroscience has long focused on finding encoding models that effectively ask "what predicts neural spiking?" and generalized linear models (GLMs) are a typical approach. It is often unknown how much of explainable neural activity is captured, or missed, when fitting a GLM. Here we compared the predictive performance of GLMs to three leading machine learning methods: feedforward neural networks, gradient boosted trees (using XGBoost), and stacked ensembles that combine the predictions of several methods. We predicted spike counts in macaque motor (M1) and somatosensory (S1) cortices from standard representations of reaching kinematics, and in rat hippocampal cells from open field location and orientation. In general, the modern methods (particularly XGBoost and the ensemble) produced more accurate spike predictions and were less sensitive to the preprocessing of features. This discrepancy in performance suggests that standard feature sets may often relate to neural activity in a nonlinear manner not captured by GLMs. Encoding models built with machine learning techniques, which can be largely automated, more accurately predict spikes and can offer meaningful benchmarks for simpler models.
- Downloaded 7,477 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 213 out of 67,594
- In neuroscience: 35 out of 12,116
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 488 out of 67,594
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 1,575 out of 67,594
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- Top preprints of 2018
- Paper search
- Author leaderboards
- Overall metrics
- The API
- Email newsletter
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!