Approximate Inference Method for Dynamic Interactions in Larger Neural Populations

  • Christian Donner
  • Hideaki ShimazakiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9949)


The maximum entropy method has been successfully employed to explain stationary spiking activity of a neural population by using fewer features than the number of possible activity patterns. Modeling network activity in vivo, however, has been challenging because features such as spike-rates and interactions can change according to sensory stimulation, behavior, or brain state. To capture the time-dependent activity, Shimazaki et al. (PLOS Comp Biol, 2012) previously introduced a state-space framework for the latent dynamics of neural interactions. However, the exact method suffers from computational cost; therefore its application was limited to only \({\sim }15\) neurons. Here we introduce the pseudolikelihood method combined with the TAP or Bethe approximation to the state-space model, and make it possible to estimate dynamic pairwise interactions of up to 30 neurons. These analytic approximations allow analyses of time-varying activity of larger networks in relation to stimuli or behavior.


Marginal Likelihood Neural Interaction Bethe Approximation Recursive Bayesian Estimation Exponential Family Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



CD acknowledges T. Toyoizumi for hosting his stay in RIKEN Brain Science Institute and K. Obermayer for valuable ideas and discussions. The custom-made Python programs were developed based on the code originally written by T. Sharp. CD was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft GRK1589/2.


  1. 1.
    Besag, J.: Statistical analysis of non-lattice data. Stat. 24, 179–195 (1975)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brody, C.D.: Correlations without synchrony. Neural Comput. 11(7), 1537–1551 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, E.N., Frank, L.M., Tang, D., Quirk, M.C., Wilson, M.A.: A statistical paradigm for neural spike train decoding applied to position prediction from ensemble firing patterns of rat hippocampal place cells. J. Neurosci. 18(18), 7411–7425 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Granot-Atedgi, E., Tkacik, G., Segev, R., Schneidman, E.: Stimulus-dependent maximum entropy models of neural population codes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9(3), e1002922 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Höfling, H., Tibshirani, R.: Estimation of sparse binary pairwise Markov networks using pseudo-likelihoods. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 10, 883–906 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Renart, A., de la Rocha, J., Bartho, P., Hollender, L., Parga, N., Reyes, A., Harris, K.D.: The asynchronous state in cortical circuits. Science 327(5965), 587–590 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schneidman, E., Berry, M.J., Segev, R., Bialek, W.: Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population. Nature 440(7087), 1007–1012 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shimazaki, H.: Single-trial estimation of stimulus and spike-history effects on time-varying ensemble spiking activity of multiple neurons: a simulation study. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 473(1), 012009 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shimazaki, H., Amari, S.I., Brown, E.N., Grün, S.: State-space analysis on time-varying correlations in parallel spike sequences. In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) 2009, pp. 3501–3504. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shimazaki, H., Amari, S.I., Brown, E.N., Grün, S.: State-space analysis of time-varying higher-order spike correlation for multiple neural spike train data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8(3), e1002385 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shlens, J., Field, G.D., Gauthier, J.L., Grivich, M.I., Petrusca, D., Sher, A., Litke, A.M., Chichilnisky, E.: The structure of multi-neuron firing patterns in primate retina. J. Neurosci. 26(32), 8254–8266 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tanaka, T.: Mean-field theory of Boltzmann machine learning. Phys. Rev. E 58(2), 2302 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thouless, D.J., Anderson, P.W., Palmer, R.G.: Solution of ‘solvable model of a spin glass’. Philos. Mag. 35(3), 593–601 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tkačik, G., Marre, O., Amodei, D., Schneidman, E., Bialek, W., Berry II, M.J.: Searching for collective behavior in a large network of sensory neurons. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10(1), e1003408 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tkačik, G., Mora, T., Marre, O., Amodei, D., Palmer, S.E., Berry, M.J., Bialek, W.: Thermodynamics and signatures of criticality in a network of neurons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112(37), 11508–11513 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yedidia, J.S., Freeman, W.T., Weiss, Y.: Understanding belief propagation and its generalizations. Explor. Artif. Intell. New Millenn. 8, 236–239 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yuille, A.L.: CCCP algorithms to minimize the Bethe and Kikuchi free energies: convergent alternatives to belief propagation. Neural Comput. 14(7), 1691–1722 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bernstein Center for Computational NeuroscienceBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Neural Information Processing GroupTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.RIKEN Brain Science InstituteSaitamaJapan

Personalised recommendations