Beyond bayes: On the need for a unified and Jaynesian definition of probability and information within neuroscience

Information (Switzerland)

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 175-203

  Fiorillo, Christopher D ^a  

^a Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Entropy; Inference; Information; Jaynes; Neurocentric; Neuron; Prediction; Probability; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN; INFERENCE; INFORMATION; JAYNES; NEUROCENTRIC; UNCERTAINTY;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; ENTROPY; FORECASTING; FUNCTIONS; NEURONS; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS; PROBABILITY; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS;

BIOPHYSICS;

EID: 84860327291     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20782489     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/info3020175     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379-423.
2. Kandel, E.R.; Schwartz, J.H.; Jessel, T.M. Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
3. Dayan, P.; Abbott, L.F. Theoretical Neuroscience; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001.
4. von Helmholz, H. Concerning the Perceptions in General. In Treatise on Physiological Optics, 1896; Reprinted in Visual Perception, Yantis, S., Ed.; Psychology Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2001; pp. 24-44.
5. Fiorillo, C.D. Towards a general theory of neural computation based on prediction by single neurons. PLoS One 2008, 3, e3298.
6. Friston, K. The free energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2010, 11, 127-138.
7. Gregory, R.L. Perceptions as hypotheses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1980, 290, 181-197.
8. Wolpert, D.M.; Ghahramani, Z.; Jordan, M.I. An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 1995, 269, 1880-1882.
9. Knill, D.C.; Richards, R.W. Perception as Bayesian Inference; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996.
10. Seidenberg, M.S. Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science 1997, 275, 1599-1603.
11. Gregory, R.L. Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1997, 352, 1121-1128.
12. Weiss, Y.; Simoncelli, E.P.; Adelson, E.H. Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nat. Neurosci. 2002, 5, 598-604.
13. Ernst, M.O.; Banks, M.S. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 2002, 415, 429-433.
14. Rao, R.P.N.; Olshausen, B.A.; Lewicki, M.S. Probabilistic Models of the Brain: Perception and Neural Function; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.
15. Yang, Z.; Purves, D. A statistical explanation of visual space. Nat. Neurosci. 2003, 6, 632-640.
16. Purves, D.; Lotto, R.B. Why We See What We Do: An Empirical Theory of Vision; Sinauer Associates Inc.: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2003.
17. Niemeier, M.; Crawford, J.D.; Tweed, D. Optimal transsaccadic integration explains distorted spatial perception. Nature 2003, 422, 76-80.
18. Singh, K.; Scott, S.H. A motor learning strategy reflects neural circuitry for limb control. Nat. Neurosci. 2003, 6, 399-403.
19. Kording, K.P.; Wolpert, D.M. Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature 2004, 427, 244-247.
20. Vaziri, S.; Diedrichsen, J.; Shadmehr, R. Why does the brain predict sensory consequences of oculomotor commands? Optimal integration of the predicted and the actual sensory feedback. J. Neurosci. 2006, 26, 4188-4197.
21. Howe, C.Q.; Lotto, R.B.; Purves, D. Comparison of Bayesian and empirical ranking approaches to visual perception. J. Theor. Biol. 2006, 241, 866-875.
22. Oaksford, M.; Chater, N. Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007.
23. Oaksford, M.; Chater, N. Precis of bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behav. Brain Sci. 2009, 32, 69-120.
24. Daunizeau, J.; Den Ouden, H.E.M.; Pessiglione, M.; Stephan, K.E.; Friston, K.J. Observing the observer (I): meta-Bayesian models of learning and decision making. PLoS One 2010, 5, e15554.
25. Purves, D.; Wojtach, W.T.; Lotto, R.B. Understanding vision in wholly empirical terms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 15588-15595.
26. Purves, D.; Lotto, R.B. Why We See What We Do Redux; Sinauer Associates Inc.: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2011.
27. Pouget, A.; Dayan, P.; Zemel, R. Information processing with population codes. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2000, 1, 125-132.
28. Deneve, S.; Latham, P.E.; Pouget, A. Efficient computation and cue integration with noisy population codes. Nat. Neurosci. 2001, 4, 826-831.
29. Ma, W.J.; Beck, J.M.; Latham, P.E.; Pouget, A. Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes. Nat. Neurosci. 2006, 9, 1432-1438.
30. Jazayeri, M.; Movshon, J.A. Optimal representations of sensory information by neural populations. Nat. Neurosci. 2006, 9, 690-696.
31. Beck, J.M.; Ma, W.J.; Kiani, R.; Hanks, T.; Churchland, A.K.; Roitman, J.; Shadlen, M.N.; Latham, P.E.; Pouget, A. Probabilistic population codes for Bayesian decision making. Neuron 2008, 60, 1142-1152.
32. Deneve, S. Bayesian spiking neurons I: Inference. Neural Comput. 2008, 20, 91-117.
33. Rieke, F.; Warland, D.; de Ruyter van Steveninck, R.R.; Bialek, W. Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997.
34. Jaynes, E.T. Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys. Rev. 1957, 106, 120-130.
35. Jaynes, E.T. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
36. Laplace, P.S. Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilitiés; Courier Imprimeur: Paris, France, 1819.
37. Feller, W. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1950.
38. Howson, C.; Urbach, P. Bayesian reasoning in science. Nature 1991, 350, 371-374.
39. Barlow, H.B. Possible Principles Underlying the Transformation of Sensory Messages. In Sensory Communication; Rosenblith, W.A., Ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1961; pp. 217-234.
40. de Ruyter van Steveninck, R.R.; Laughlin, S.B. The rate of information transfer at graded potential synapses. Nature 1996, 379, 642-645.
41. Juusola, M.; French, A.S. The efficiency of sensory information coding by mechanoreceptor neurons. Neuron 1997, 18, 959-968.
42. Brenner, N.; Bialek, W.; de Ruyter van Steveninck, R.R. Adaptive rescaling maximizes information transmission. Neuron 2000, 26, 695-702.
43. Fairhall, A.L.; Lewen, G.D.; Bialek, W.; de Ruyter van Steveninck, R.R. Efficiency and ambiguity in an adaptive neural code. Nature 2001, 412, 787-792.
44. Simoncelli, E.P.; Olshausen, B.A. Natural image statistics and neural representation. Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 2001, 24, 1193-1216.
45. Corlett, P.; Gancsos, M.E.; Fiorillo, C.D. The Bayesian Self and Its Disruption in Psychosis. In Phenomenological Neuropsychiatry: How Patient Experience Bridges Clinic with Clinical Neuroscience; Mishara, A., Corlett, P., Fletcher, P., Schwartz, M., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012, in press.
46. Fiorillo, C.D. A neurocentric approach to bayesian inference. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2010, doi:10.1038/nrn2787-c1.
47. Friston, K. Is the free-energy principle neurocentric? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2010, doi:10.1038/nrn2787-c2.
48. MacKay, D.J.C. Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
49. Trappenberg, T.P. Fundamentals of Computational Neuroscience, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2010.
50. Schultz, W.; Preuschoff, K.; Camerer, C.; Hsu, M.; Fiorillo, C.D.; Tobler, P.N.; Bossaerts, P. Explicit neural signals reflecting reward uncertainty. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2008, 363, 3801-3811.
51. Yu, A.J.; Dayan, P. Uncertainty, neuromodulation, and attention. Neuron 2006, 46, 681-692.
52. Jaynes, E.T. Probability in Quantum Theory. In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information; Zurek, W.H., Ed.; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1990; pp. 381-400. (Revised and extended version available online: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/node1.html)
53. Hille, B. Ionic Channels of Excitable Membranes, 3rd ed.; Sinauer Associates Inc.: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2001.
54. Shadlen, M.N.; Newsome, W.T. The variable discharge of cortical neurons: Implications for connectivity, computation, and information coding. J. Neurosci. 1998, 18, 3870-3896.
55. London, M.; Roth, A.; Beergen, L.; Hausser, M.; Latham, P.E. Sensitivity to perturbations in vivo implies high noise and suggests rate coding in cortex. Nature 2010, 466, 123-127.
56. Phillips, W.A. Self-organized complexity and Coherent Infomax from the viewpoint of Jaynes's probability theory. Information 2012, 3, 1-15.
57. Kay, J.; Phillips, W.A. Coherent Infomax as a computational goal for neural systems. Bull. Math. Biol. 2011, 73, 344-372.
58. Seung, H.S.; Sompolinsky, H. Simple models for reading neural population codes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1993, 90, 10749-10753.
59. Sanger, T.D. Probability density estimation for the interpretation of neural population codes. J. Neurophysiol. 1996, 76, 2790-2793.
60. Knill, D.C.; Pouget, A. The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends Neurosci. 2004, 27, 712-719.
61. Fiorillo, C.D. A New Approach to the Information in Neural Systems. In Integral Biomathics: Tracing the Road to Reality; Simeonov, P.L., Smith, L.S., Ehresmann, A.C., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.