English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Many experimental studies of neural coding rely on a statistical interpretation of the theoretical notion of the rate at which a neuron fires spikes. For example, neuroscientists often ask, "Does a population of neurons exhibit more synchronous spiking than one would expect from the covariability of their instantaneous firing rates?" For another example, "How much of a neuron's observed spiking variability is caused by the variability of its instantaneous firing rate, and how much is caused by spike timing variability?" However, a neuron's theoretical firing rate is not necessarily well-defined. Consequently, neuroscientific questions involving the theoretical firing rate do not have a meaning in isolation but can only be interpreted in light of additional statistical modeling choices. Ignoring this ambiguity can lead to inconsistent reasoning or wayward conclusions. We illustrate these issues with examples drawn from the neural-coding literature.

Ambiguity and nonidentifiability in the statistical analysis of neural codes