1: %\documentclass{article}

2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,rmp]{revtex4}

3: 

4: \usepackage{latexsym}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: 

7: \begin{document}

8: \title{How to find decision makers in neural circuits?}

9: \author{Alexei A. Koulakov$^{1}$, Dmitry Rinberg$^{2}$, and Dmitry N. Tsigankov$^{1}$} 

10: 

11: \address{

12: \protect{$^1$}\hspace{-.0in}Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA \\

13: \protect{$^2$}Monell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

14: }

15: 

16: \begin{abstract}

17: Neural circuits often face the problem of classifying stimuli into discrete 

18: groups and making decisions based on such classifications. Neurons of these 

19: circuits can be distinguished according to their correlations with different 

20: features of stimulus or response, which allows defining sensory or motor 

21: neuronal types. In this study we define the third class of neurons, which is 

22: responsible for making decision. We suggest two descriptions for contribution of 

23: units to decision making: first, as a spatial derivative of correlations between 

24: neural activity and the decision; second, as an impact of variability in a given 

25: neuron on the response. These two definitions are shown to be equivalent, when 

26: they can be compared. We also suggest an experimental strategy for determining 

27: contributions to decision making, which uses electric stimulation with time-

28: varying random current. 

29: \end{abstract}

30: 

31: \pacs{n/a}

32: 

33: \maketitle

34: 

35: \section{INTRODUCTION}\label{introduction}

36: 

37: Nervous system is continuously confronted by megabytes of information, 

38: representing light, sound, smell, etc. This information is compiled by the 

39: brain into a set of decisions, representing behaviors of living organisms. 

40: The mechanisms involved in this reduction have been under investigation for 

41: many years (Glimcher, 2003; Romo and Salinas, 

42: 2003). In this study we address a question complimentary to the issue of 

43: decision making (DM) mechanisms. We define neuronal units involved in making 

44: perceptual decisions. For this purpose we determine DM activity in surrogate 

45: networks, defined mathematically, in which a complete control is present 

46: over stimuli, mechanisms, and responses. Such decision making analysis (DMA) 

47: has practical significance, since once units involved in making particular 

48: decision are located, further efforts could be concentrated on uncovering 

49: the underlying mechanisms. 

50: 

51: In this study DM task is defined as evaluation of a function in the 

52: multidimensional stimulus space (Figure 1A). This function has a discrete set 

53: of values, representing the repertoire of responses available to the 

54: organism. The decisions may, of course, be stochastic, to reflect the 

55: uncertainty, pertinent to behavior. This definition is suitable for 

56: experiments where subjects perform poly-alternative forced-choice tasks, 

57: such as saccadic response to the direction of stimulus motion 

58: (Shadlen and Newsome, 2001).

59: 

60: 

61: 

62: 

63: 

64: 

65: \begin{figure}[htbp]

66: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma1.eps}}

67: \caption{\textbf{A,} Definition of decision making task. Nervous system 

68: evaluates a function, whose values represent discrete decisions, in the 

69: many-dimensional sensory space. \textbf{B,} Some of the visual areas 

70: involved in motion-discrimination task. The areas on the left are more 

71: sensory (response is correlated with the sensory input), while those of the 

72: right are more motor (correlated with the response).

73: }

74: \label{fig1}

75: \end{figure}

76: 

77: 

78: Let us consider motion-discrimination task in more detail. Figure 1B lists 

79: some visual areas, which are involved in this task. The areas are arranged 

80: along a rough sensory-motor axis, so that the areas on the left are more 

81: ``sensory'', while those on the right are more ``motor''. This implies that 

82: the responses in these areas are more correlated with stimulus or response 

83: respectively. Where on this sensory-motor axis one should position the DM 

84: elements? One could argue that the elements most correlated with the 

85: decision itself are the decision makers, following the analogy with the 

86: definition of sensory and motor elements. It is, however, difficult, if not 

87: impossible, to distinguish such definition from the definition of purely 

88: motor units (Shadlen and Newsome, 2001). The latter 

89: relay the results of decision making process, without involvement in the 

90: formation of the decision. An alternative approach is therefore needed to 

91: define the DM units. 

92: 

93: The DM components may be surmised to be located on the interface between 

94: sensory and motor areas. More precisely, the \textit{first} element in the sensory-motor 

95: chain, which carries significant correlation with the response, may be 

96: identified as the decision maker. In this study we develop this idea into 

97: rigorous mathematical formulation and find a special correlation function, 

98: which determines contributions of units to DM. This 

99: formalism allows us to answer two questions pertaining to the identities of 

100: DM units. First, we consider the case when not one but \textit{several} elements are 

101: involved in the same decision simultaneously. Our approach allows us to 

102: evaluate relative importance of various units in such a distributed DM. 

103: Second, we consider the systems with loops in connectivity. For such systems 

104: the concept of `the first element' becomes more arbitrary and one has to 

105: proceed more carefully in defining contributions to DM. We succeed in doing 

106: so for our surrogate networks and define DM units for recurrent networks in 

107: a way, which is consistent with the linear sensory-motor chains, thus 

108: satisfying the requirement of the correspondence principle. 

109: 

110: This paper is organized as follows. We first analyze simple linear chain models,

111: and networks, such as trees, which have similar properties. We then 

112: use this analysis to define decision makers in networks of arbitrary 

113: connectivity. Finally, we extend our study to the cases, when electric 

114: stimulation can be applied to units, and show that DM components can be 

115: identified in a way consistent with our preceeding analyses. 

116: 

117: \section{LINEAR CHAINS AND THEIR DERIVATIVES}

118: \label{linearchain}

119: 

120: The goal of this section is to formulate quantitative principles by which DM network elements can be identified. 

121: We approach this task by analyzing simple cases, which can be solved exactly without the use of computer, and in which the identities of DM elements are clear. 

122: These cases allow us to emphasize the properties of DM task we are attempting to describe.

123: We proceed therefore to the analysis of the simplest network capable of making decisions.

124: 

125: 

126: \subsection{The `nematode' network}

127: \label{nematode}

128: 

129: In this subsection we consider the network, which we call `nematode', because of its resemblance to simple biological organisms, both in the layout and in the fundamental significance.

130: We first define the model; then show that it can make simple decisions; and, finally, define the positions of decision makers in the network.

131: 

132: 

133: \begin{figure}[htbp]

134: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma2.eps}}

135: \caption{\textbf{A,} a simple `nematode' network consists of a linear chain 

136: of units. All units in the chain, but 

137: the last, are linear. The last unit, shown by the square, is non-linear and 

138: returns zero or one depending on the sign of the response of the preceding 

139: unit. \textbf{B,} The average input-output relationship for the `nematode' 

140: is given by the sigmoid function (error function). The spread of the sigmoid 

141: is determined by the net noise in the chain.

142: }

143: \label{fig2}

144: \end{figure}

145: 

146: 

147: Consider a linear chain of units, whose response is characterized by a set 

148: of real numbers $x_i$, where $i=1...N$ is the position of the element in 

149: the chain (Figure 2). Response of each element does not depend on time. This 

150: model is therefore static. This assumption is introduced here to simplify 

151: the analysis and can be relaxed as described below (section~\ref{trees}). Each unit 

152: performs a simple linear transformation between the unit's input and the 

153: output. Thus, for element number $i$

154: \begin{equation}

155: \label{eq1}

156: x_i =x_{i-1} +\eta _i 

157: \end{equation}

158: Here $\eta _i $ is noise associated with the element. In this work we assume 

159: that noise has zero mean, is individual to each unit, and, therefore, is 

160: uncorrelated between units, i.e.

161: \begin{equation}

162: \label{eq2}

163: {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

164:  {\overline {\eta _i } =0,} \hfill & \hfill \\

165: \end{array} }\overline {\eta _i \eta _j } =\left\{ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}

166:  {\overline {\eta _i^2 } ,} \hfill & {i=j} \hfill \\

167:  {0,} \hfill & {i\ne j} \hfill \\

168: \end{array} }} \right.

169: \end{equation}

170: We further assume that noise has a Gaussian distribution. The chain of 

171: linear elements is thus completely specified by a set of noise variances 

172: $\overline {\eta _i^2 } $. The model described by (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}) yields the 

173: following solution for the response of the last element in the chain 

174: \begin{equation}

175: \label{eq3}

176: x_N =x_0 +\eta _1 +\eta _2 +...+\eta _{N-1} +\eta _N .

177: \end{equation}

178: Thus, the response of the last element is just a sum of the input into 

179: network $x_0$ and noise contributions from all units, independently on the 

180: order of unit in the chain. 

181: 

182: The last element in the chain has non-linear response properties. Its 

183: response is defined by

184: \begin{equation}

185: \label{eq4}

186: d=H(x_N ),

187: \end{equation}

188: where $H(x)$ is the Heaviside~step~function, which is equal to one/zero if 

189: the argument is positive/negative. It follows then that our `nematode' 

190: network is capable of making decisions based on the values of input 

191: variable $x_0$. This is if we interpret variable $d$, which is equal either 0 

192: or 1, as the result of DM process, as defined in Figure 1A. The decisions 

193: are made stochastically and are dependent upon the instantiations of random 

194: variables $\eta _i $, which vary from trial to trial. 

195: 

196: \begin{figure}[htbp]

197: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma3.eps}}

198: \caption{

199: \textbf{A,} If signal-to-noise ratio is high, responses of all 

200: units are well correlated with the output, as shown on the right by the 

201: mutual information between the response of given unit and the output. 

202: \textbf{B,} For the case of low signal-to-noise ratio, the output is more 

203: correlated with the motor units (right) than with the sensory ones (left).

204: }

205: \label{fig3}

206: \end{figure}

207: 

208: 

209: Our model is completely defined by the set of noise variances, pertinent to 

210: each unit $\overline {\eta _i^2 }$. Although decisions made by this chain 

211: are quite simple, the identities of decision makers are not so easy to find. 

212: The distribution of impact to DM along the chain should depend upon the 

213: distribution of noise variables $\overline {\eta _i^2 } $. Our next goal is 

214: to develop a sensible definition of contributions to DM based on the vector 

215: of variances $\overline {\eta _i^2 } $. Before doing so we describe general 

216: input-output properties of the chain. 

217: 

218: Since decision made by the network varies from trial to trial, one can 

219: define averaged over trials response of the system $\overline {d(x_0 )} $. 

220: As shown in Figure 2B it has a sigmoid shape, smeared by the total amount of 

221: noise in the system. One can, therefore, consider two cases, depending on 

222: whether the signal-to-noise ratio for the chain is large or small. These two 

223: regimes are shown in Figure 3A and B respectively. 

224: 

225: To analyze responses of units in these two cases we define their correlation 

226: with the decision. This correlation is defined for each element in the chain 

227: (Figure 3, right). As a measure of correlation we choose mutual information 

228: (MI) between response of the $i-$th unit, $x_{i}$, and the decision, $d$. MI has an 

229: advantage of being unitless (it is measured in bits) and having clear 

230: intuitive properties, as described below. We will also show below in this 

231: section that MI has limitations as a measure of DM.

232: 

233: MI describes the information transmission from the $i-$th unit to the output of 

234: the system. Since the output can only have values 0 or 1, MI cannot exceed 

235: the value of one bit. We now consider two cases, depending on the network's 

236: signal-to-noise ratio. If network input $\left| {x_0 } \right|$ is large, as 

237: in Figure 3A, response of the system is well correlated with the input. 

238: Hence, activities of all units are well correlated with both input and 

239: output, and $MI(x_i ,d)\approx 1$ for all of the units. In the opposite 

240: limit, when the signal-to-noise ratio is small, $\left| {x_0 } \right|$ is 

241: smaller than noise, and the system's response is weakly correlated with the 

242: input (Figure 3B). In this case MI as a function of unit's position displays a 

243: structure, shown in Figure 3B (right). This structure, as shown below, has a 

244: key to the definition of DM components and is qualitatively discussed here. 

245: The units, which are close to the exit from the network, show strong 

246: correlation with the decision, similarly to the high signal-to-noise ratio case. 

247: Their MI is therefore close to 1 bit. On the 

248: other hand, more `sensory' units, in the beginning of the chain are strongly 

249: correlated with the input. Since input-output correlation is weak in low 

250: signal-to-noise ratio case, the `sensory' units display virtually \textit{no} relation 

251: to the output and $MI(x_i ,d)\approx 0$ for such units (Figure 3B, right). 

252: Thus, MI, as a function of $i$ displays a transition from 0 to 1 in the

253: low signal-to-noise ratio case. 

254: 

255: How could one deduce identities of decision makers from these dependencies 

256: (Figure 3A and B)? One could suggest that the elements perfectly correlated 

257: with the output of the system, such as exit elements from the chain, are the 

258: ones that make the decision. However, such elements may be just the relay or 

259: `motor' units, in which case their contribution to DM is small. Indeed, when 

260: we type, our decisions are perfectly correlated with activities of finger 

261: muscles; but one could hardly blame our fingers for the content of the 

262: typing. Thus, despite their high correlation with the output, exit elements 

263: could not be called decision makers. Input elements, having no correlation 

264: with the decision, are responsible for DM in even lesser degree. We thus 

265: need to analyze the dependence of MI on position in more detail and suggest 

266: another scheme for defining DM units.

267: 

268: Our discarding of motor units as decision makers can be further extended 

269: onto the entire high signal-to-noise ratio case (Figure 3A). We suggest that 

270: the deterministic regime is not descriptive from the point of view of DM 

271: analysis. First, in this regime all units become indistinguishable from 

272: motor. The latter are not decision makers, as suggested above. Second, the 

273: dependence shown in Figure 3A (right) does not reveal the contributions of 

274: individual units to the decision. Since all units have the same correlation, 

275: it is hard, if not impossible, to differentiate them and assign different 

276: contributions. Third, the responses of units in this case are 

277: deterministically related to the input. Hence, units act as relays, 

278: passively transmitting information along the chain. It can be argued that 

279: the external environment, providing the input variable $x_0$, acts as the 

280: decision maker. We conclude that to find decision making activity one has to 

281: concentrate on the low signal-to-noise ratio case. 

282: 

283: We show below that the identities of decision making units can be deduced 

284: from the shape of transition in Figure 3B (right). To this end we analyze a 

285: set of examples of networks with various distributions of noise $\overline 

286: {\eta _i^2 } $. We start from the simplest example of a single noisy unit.

287: 

288: \subsubsection{Example 1: 'Noisy' neuron.} 

289: 

290: Consider a chain in which noise is absent from all units but one, whose 

291: order number in the chain is $n$ (Figure 4). Since, according to our 

292: previous discussion, we need to consider the low signal-to-noise ratio case, 

293: we will assume that

294: \begin{equation}

295: \label{eq5}

296: x_0 =0,

297: \end{equation}

298: i.e. network receives no input. Making the decision in this case is still possible, 

299: based on the values of noise inside the network. Since noise is only present in one neuron, from 

300: (\ref{eq3}) we conclude that 

301: \begin{equation}

302: \label{eq6}

303: x_N =\eta _n .

304: \end{equation}

305: The decision made by the network is

306: \begin{equation}

307: \label{eq7}

308: d=H(\eta _n ).

309: \end{equation}

310: Thus, decision is causally linked to the processes controlling unit number 

311: $n$, which leads us to conclusion that this neuron is the decision maker. 

312: 

313: Paradoxically, the noisiest unit in this simple formulation makes the 

314: largest impact. All noiseless elements, even nonlinear, are deterministic, 

315: and work as simple relays which transmit information from the previous node 

316: to the next one. The output of the circuit is linked to the processes 

317: controlling noise in neuron number $n$, rather that in any other neuron in 

318: the network.

319: 

320: One would be tempted to conclude that the non-linear element is actually the 

321: decision maker in this case. We deduce that the non-linear element does 

322: not have a causal effect on output from the circuit; therefore its role is 

323: just to relay response from neuron $n$ to the output. In this respect the 

324: non-linear element is not different from other noiseless elements. 

325: 

326: To link this example to our previous discussion (Figure 3B) we plot MI as a 

327: function of position in the chain in Figure 4 (top). As we discussed, MI is 

328: high for exit (`motor') units and low for input (`sensory') elements. Figure 

329: 4 also shows the derivative of MI with respect to position in the chain. It 

330: is clear that this derivative represents the decision making element. Thus, 

331: we conclude that not correlation with the decision but the \textit{rate of change} of the latter 

332: along the network is the indicator of DM.

333: 

334: \begin{figure}[htbp]

335: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma4.eps}}

336: \caption{

337: The example of 'noisy' neuron (marked by asterisk). Top 

338: panel, mutual information between given unit and the decision. Bottom panel, 

339: derivative of mutual information. The derivative represents the 

340: decision making unit in this case. 

341: }

342: \label{fig4}

343: \end{figure}

344: 

345: 

346: \subsubsection{Example 2: Uniformly distributed noise.} Our next example shows that the conclusion about derivative of MI is 

347: basically correct, but has to be slightly amended to be numerically precise. 

348: Consider the chain in which all elements are noisy and the variance of noise 

349: is the same for each element. In this case 

350: \begin{equation}

351: \label{eq8}

352: x_N =\eta _1 +\eta _2 +...+\eta _{N-1} +\eta _N 

353: \end{equation}

354: i.e. all units contribute to decision \textit{equally}. This is because Eq. (\ref{eq8}) does not 

355: distinguish the order in which contributions from the units are added, and 

356: all contributions are of equal strength on average. Can this conclusion be 

357: confirmed by the derivative of MI?

358: 

359: Figure 5A shows MI as a function of position in the chain for this case. 

360: This dependence is obtained in Appendix A. It increases smoothly from 0 to 1 

361: resulting in a non-zero derivative at all units. This is consistent with 

362: (\ref{eq8}) and the notion that all units participate in the decision. However, 

363: (\ref{eq8}) suggests that all units participate in decision \textit{equally}. The derivative of MI 

364: turns out to be slightly non-uniform, as seen in Figure 5A. This can be 

365: corrected if not MI itself but a non-linear function of MI, denoted $F(MI)$, 

366: is considered. This non-linear function is calculated in Appendix A and is 

367: shown in Figure 5B. The new correlator $F(MI)$ has the same basic properties 

368: as the MI. It rises from 0 to 1 monotonously when passing through the array 

369: (Figure 5C). But, in addition, its derivative turns out to be \textit{uniform}, as shown in 

370: Figure 5C (bottom). This is consistent with equal participation of all units 

371: in DM in the uniformly distributed noise case and Eq.~(\ref{eq8}). Thus, we 

372: conclude that for this case the contributions to DM are given by the rate of 

373: increase of $F(MI)$ when moving through the array

374: \begin{equation}

375: \label{eq9}

376: DM_i =F\left( {MI_i } \right)-F\left( {MI_{i-1} } \right).

377: \end{equation}

378: Here $i$ is the index along the chain. Eq.~(\ref{eq9}) is the main result of this 

379: paper. It represents our definition of contributions to DM for networks of 

380: simple connectivity, such as chains. 

381: 

382: Three points should be made about the definition (\ref{eq9}). First, it reproduces 

383: the result obtained in the previous example of 'noisy' neuron. Indeed, the 

384: mutual information rises from 0 to 1 on the 'noisy' neuron in Figure 4. But 

385: $F(MI)$ coincides with MI at these values, as follows from its plot in 

386: Figure 5B. Thus, the derivative of $F(MI)$ is also given by a single spike 

387: at the position of 'noisy' neuron, as in Figure 4 (bottom). Second, Eq. (\ref{eq9}) 

388: implies that, from point of view of DM, not mutual information, but another 

389: correlator, given by $F(MI)$, is more relevant. Function $F$ deviates from 

390: linear function only slightly (Figure 5B), and for practical purposes the 

391: distinction between the MI and $F(MI)$ could be ignored. However, we retain 

392: it throughout the manuscript to ensure mathematical rigor. Third, when 

393: deducing (\ref{eq9}) we did not postulate that contributions to DM are 

394: proportional to the variance of noise. Instead, we suggested that Eq. (\ref{eq8}) 

395: implies that all units contribute equally, independently on the order in the 

396: chain. This simple qualitative statement is powerful enough to constrain our 

397: quantitative reasoning and lead to a measure of DM in form of function 

398: $F(MI)$ and definition (\ref{eq9}). We do not know yet if the derivative of 

399: $F(MI)$ is proportional to the variance of noise, square root of this 

400: variance, or any other characteristic of noise in each element. All of these 

401: parameters give the same results in the uniform noise case. We need to have 

402: a difference between units to measure relative strength of their 

403: contributions. This is achieved by the next example.

404: 

405: 

406: \begin{figure}[htbp]

407: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma5.eps}}

408: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma6.eps}}

409: \caption{

410: The example with uniformly distributed noise. 

411: \textbf{A}, mutual information between response of given unit and the 

412: decision. The dependence has a non-uniform increase, suggesting that mutual 

413: information is not a good measure of decision making. \textbf{B}, if one 

414: applies a non-linear function (solid curve) to the mutual information in 

415: \textbf{A}, one obtains a uniformly increasing correlator in \textbf{C}. 

416: This non-linear function, called $F(MI)$, is close to linear, shown by the 

417: dotted line. \textbf{C}, the new correlator $F(MI)$ (top panel) has a 

418: uniform derivative (bottom panel). Thus, derivative of $F(MI)$ is a sensible 

419: measure of decision making in the case of uniform noise. 

420: }

421: \label{fig5}

422: \end{figure}

423: 

424: 

425: \subsubsection{Example 3: `Loud' neuron.} In this example the variances of noise on all neurons are the same, 

426: similarly to the previous case. However, here we amend the network 

427: definition given by (\ref{eq1}). We do so for only one neuron. We assume that the 

428: link between units 5 and 6 is characterized by a very large strength $K>>1$. 

429: Thus, for neuron number 6 (Figure 6) instead of (\ref{eq1}) we have

430: \begin{equation}

431: \label{eq10}

432: x_6 =Kx_5 +\eta _6 

433: \end{equation}

434: Therefore this example is the same as the previous, except that the single 

435: network connection is changed. What are the DM units in this case?

436: 

437: The network's output is given by 

438: \begin{equation}

439: \label{eq11}

440: x_N =K(\eta _1 +\eta _2 +...+\eta _5 )+\eta _6 +...+\eta _{11} 

441: \end{equation}

442: Thus, units 1 through 5 contribute equally to decision. In addition, their 

443: contributions are multiplied by a large factor $K$. Units 6 through 11 also 

444: contribute equally, but their contribution is much smaller than that of the 

445: former group. We conclude that units 1 through 5 are much stronger 

446: decision makers than units 6 through 11. This conclusion is supported by the 

447: derivative of $F(MI)$, as shown in Figure 6 (bottom).

448: 

449: \begin{figure}[htbp]

450: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma7.eps}}

451: \caption{

452: The `loud' neuron example. The link between units 5 an 6 

453: is strengthened. Compare to Figure 5A.

454: }

455: \label{fig6}

456: \end{figure}

457: 

458: 

459: Thus, changing one link in the chain produces large effect on the 

460: distribution of DM. The units downstream from the link contribute less to 

461: decisions, while the units upstream contribute a lot. What is the measure of 

462: decision making, which could differentiate these two types of units? 

463: 

464: Calculations in Appendix A show that derivative of $F(MI)$ is proportional 

465: to $K^2$ for units 1 through 5. This is easy to understand qualitatively, 

466: since MI increases along the chain even for negative ($K<0)$ links. This 

467: is \textit{not} possible if contribution from units 1 to 5 are multiplied by $K$ for 

468: example. Thus, an even power of $K$ is required, which is shown in Appendix 

469: A to be $K^2$. 

470: 

471: \subsubsection{Alternative definition of DM.} So far we have used definition (\ref{eq9}), which is quite complex, since it 

472: involves calculation of a nonlinear function $F(MI)$. Is it possible to 

473: reproduce the results derived above in a simpler way? It turns out that the 

474: role of given unit in DM is proportional to its contribution to the 

475: variability of the output $\overline {x_N^2 } $. This leads us to an 

476: alternative to (\ref{eq9}) definition of DM. 

477: 

478: Let us introduce the new definition using the examples, considered above. 

479: From (\ref{eq11}) in the `loud' neuron case we derive 

480: \begin{equation}

481: \label{eq12}

482: \overline {x_N^2 } =K^2(\overline {\eta _1^2 } +...+\overline {\eta _5^2 } 

483: )+\overline {\eta _6^2 } +...+\overline {\eta _{11}^2 } .

484: \end{equation}

485: We could conjecture that the contributions to DM from different units are 

486: weighted proportionally to the corresponding summands in (\ref{eq12}). Indeed, if 

487: we assume

488: \[

489: DM_{1..5} =\overline {\eta _{1..5}^2 } K^2

490: \]

491: \begin{equation}

492: \label{eq13}

493: DM_{6..11} =\overline {\eta _{6..11}^2 } ,

494: \end{equation}

495: by choosing appropriate values of variance of noise and gain, we can 

496: reproduce the results of all three of our previous examples. Thus, in the 

497: case of 'noisy' neuron the variance of noise is only present in one unit, 

498: rendering this unit decision maker, according to (\ref{eq13}). In the case of 

499: uniform noise, when $K=1$ and all $\overline {\eta _{1..11}^2 } $ are the 

500: same, (\ref{eq13}) gives uniform contributions to DM. In the case of `loud' neuron, 

501: (\ref{eq13}) gives the correct factor $K^2$ describing the advantage of upstream 

502: neurons. Thus, the contributions to DM are proportional to the variance of 

503: noise on given element, multiplied by the square of the gain from this 

504: element to the output. We can rewrite (\ref{eq13}) in a more compact form to 

505: emphasize this latter statement

506: \begin{equation}

507: \label{eq14}

508: DM_i =\overline {\eta _i^2 } \frac{d\overline {x_N^2 } }{d\overline {\eta 

509: _i^2 } }.

510: \end{equation}

511: One could verify (\ref{eq14}), by applying it to (\ref{eq12}) and obtaining 

512: relationships (\ref{eq13}). This justifies (\ref{eq14}) in the three examples considered 

513: above.

514: 

515: Eq. (\ref{eq14}) also applies to linear chains in general. In Appendix A we derive 

516: (\ref{eq14}) from previous definition (\ref{eq9}) for arbitrary distribution of 

517: connection strengths and noise. Thus, (\ref{eq14}) can be considered an 

518: alternative definition to (\ref{eq9}). The equivalence between (\ref{eq9}) and (\ref{eq14}) is 

519: demonstrated graphically in Figure 7. 

520: 

521: Why should one consider an alternative definition? This is because (\ref{eq9}) 

522: cannot be applied to networks of arbitrary connectivity, such as circuits 

523: containing loops. Definition (\ref{eq14}) however applies to all topologies, 

524: including the linear chain examples, considered here. 

525: 

526: \begin{figure}[htbp]

527: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma8.eps}}

528: \caption{

529: Equivalence of two definitions. The top panel shows 

530: distribution of noise variance (asterisk diameter) and of $F(MI)$ (bars). 

531: The bottom panel displays the derivative of $F(MI)$, defined by (\ref{eq9}). The 

532: derivative is numerically the same as the variance of noise. Both can be 

533: used as measures of decision making.

534: }

535: \label{fig7}

536: \end{figure}

537: 

538: 

539: \subsection{Conclusions from `nematode' study}

540: \label{conclusions}

541: 

542: Let us review our findings. First, we arrived to the definition of DM 

543: activity using the information-theoretical approach (\ref{eq9}). According to this 

544: definition, DM is the rate of change of correlation with decision along the 

545: chain. In other words, the \textit{first} element or elements, which correlate with the 

546: decision, are the decision makers. This approach has its pros and contras. 

547: Indeed, the viewpoint expressed by (\ref{eq9}) has a potential to be transferred 

548: to other systems, which contain non-linear elements. Eq. (\ref{eq9}) has an 

549: information-theoretical origin; hence its applicability may be broader than 

550: our simple system. 

551: %We emphasize, however, that this point is not confirmed 

552: %here, it will be further explored elsewhere. 

553: Another advantage of (\ref{eq9}) is 

554: that it relies on the characteristics measurable in single-electrode 

555: recording experiments, such as response of single unit and its correlation 

556: with behavioral decision. Thus, (\ref{eq9}) could be used experimentally. The 

557: disadvantage of the information-theoretical approach is that it is not clear 

558: how to apply it to the systems with loops, as we have mentioned above. Since 

559: biological networks almost always contain loops this significantly limits 

560: the applicability of information-theoretical formula (\ref{eq9}). 

561: 

562: Our second step was to derive an alternative definition (\ref{eq14}). The latter 

563: is \textit{equivalent} to the former definition (\ref{eq9}) for linear-chain (`nematode') example, as 

564: we have demonstrated on simple examples and have shown more rigorously in 

565: Appendix A. The alternative definition (\ref{eq14}) can be understood on the basis 

566: of the following two observations. First, the example of `noisy' neuron 

567: shows that the variability is the source of decisions. Thus,

568: 

569: \underline {\textbf{Conclusion 1:}} Under fixed other conditions, an 

570: increase in variability and noise in a single unit leads to a larger 

571: contribution to DM from this unit. 

572: \begin{equation}

573: \label{eq15}

574: DM_i \sim \overline {\eta _i^2 } 

575: \end{equation}

576: 

577: Second, the example of `loud' neuron shows that not only variability and 

578: noise are important but also how much of this variability reaches the motor 

579: units. DM is hence a property of network connectivity too. Thus, we arrive 

580: to the next rule

581: 

582: \underline {\textbf{Conclusion 2:}} The stronger is the pathway from given 

583: unit to the motor output, the larger is the contribution of this unit to DM. 

584: \begin{equation}

585: \label{eq16}

586: DM_i \sim \frac{d\overline {x_N^2 } }{d\overline {\eta _i^2 } }

587: \end{equation}

588: These two rules are combined into the definition (\ref{eq14}). Although (\ref{eq14}) and 

589: (\ref{eq16}) assume that the output element is unique, this requirement will be 

590: removed below, when we consider arbitrary topology networks.

591: 

592: What are the features of (\ref{eq14})? It could be used for an arbitrary topology 

593: network, since it does not contain derivative along the chain, as (\ref{eq9}) 

594: does. Definition (\ref{eq14}) can also be used operationally to measure the 

595: contribution of each neuron to the decision experimentally. To do that one 

596: needs to vary noise at the given unit and measure the variability of the 

597: responses. The details are discussed in section ~\ref{stimulation}

598: below.

599: 

600: A special note should be made about normalization in (\ref{eq14}). Throughout this 

601: work we adopt the convention that DM contributions are evaluated for all 

602: units and then normalized proportionally to (\ref{eq14}), so that the total sum of 

603: all contributions is equal to one (or 100{\%}). We will assume this to hold 

604: below without explicitly mentioning. Finally, we give another 

605: definition of DM contributions, which could be useful when noise in the 

606: system is the same for all units. In this case the only difference between 

607: units is due to difference in their position in the network. We therefore 

608: call such quantity \textit{topological} DM. 

609: \begin{equation}

610: \label{eq17}

611: TDM_i =\frac{\partial \sigma ^2(x_N )}{\partial \overline {\eta _i^2 } }

612: \end{equation}

613: As seen from e.g. (\ref{eq12}) it does not depend on the levels of noise, and can 

614: be obtained from (\ref{eq14}) by assuming that $\overline {\eta _i^2 } =1$ for all 

615: units. It therefore describes how strongly each elements of the circuit 

616: affects the output. This quantity is sometimes helpful in describing the 

617: network's topology.

618: 

619: Lastly, we discuss the notion of noise and variability in our approach. Is 

620: this really noise, which leads networks to decisions? Not necessarily. 

621: Imagine that we have studied a chain-like network (Figure 8A) and performed 

622: the DM analysis, described above. We found that the network contains two 

623: decision makers, which are equally important. A more thorough investigation 

624: may suggest that these units are inputs from external network, which in 

625: effect is responsible for DM. For example, these hidden pathways may be 

626: inputs from other sensory modalities or regulatory inputs of other type. 

627: Thus, DMA may help identify entry points from other, less studied, parts of 

628: the network.

629: 

630: \begin{figure}[htbp]

631: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.0in]{dma10.eps}}

632: \caption{

633: Hidden pathway. The intensity of red shows 

634: contribution to decision making for each unit. \textbf{A,} analysis for an 

635: incomplete connectivity reveals two decision makers. \textbf{B,} a more 

636: thorough study may show that this results from other inputs to the network.

637: }

638: \label{fig8}

639: \end{figure}

640: 

641: 

642: \subsection{Trees}

643: \label{trees}

644: 

645: Our studies indicate that information-theoretical analysis [definition (\ref{eq9})] can be 

646: further extended to tree-like topologies (Figure 9). To this end we define 

647: column-vector 

648: $\mathord{\buildrel{\lower3pt\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightharpoonup$}}\over 

649: {f}}$ such that $f_i =F(MI_i )$. Then (\ref{eq9}) is equivalent to

650: \begin{equation}

651: \label{eq18}

652: \overrightarrow {DM} =(\hat {I}-\hat {S})\vec {f}.

653: \end{equation}

654: Here $\hat {S}$ is the structure matrix defined as follows. An element 

655: $S_{ij} $ of the structure matrix is equal to 1 if there is a connection 

656: from unit number $i$ to $j$. Matrix $\hat {I}-\hat {S}$ thus implements 

657: evaluating differences between connected elements in (\ref{eq9}). Structure matrix 

658: is related to connectivity matrix, containing network's weights through 

659: $S_{ij} =\left| {sign(C_{ij} )} \right|$. Connectivity matrices for some 

660: networks are shown in Figures 9 and 10.

661: 

662: \begin{figure}[htbp]

663: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.0in]{dma11.eps}}

664: \caption{

665: Mutual information approach can be extended to 

666: connectivities other than linear chains (\textbf{A}). Thus, decision makers 

667: on trees (\textbf{B}) can also be found. Arbitrary network can be specified 

668: by connectivity matrices, which are provided for illustration purposes. The 

669: non-zero entries in a connectivity matrix indicate a connection between two 

670: elements numbered on the left. An entry value describes the strength of 

671: connection and does not have to be unitary or positive.

672: }

673: \label{fig9}

674: \end{figure}

675: 

676: 

677: Information-theoretical approach can be even further extended on the cases, when signals 

678: propagate along the network in time, therefore resulting in delays between 

679: signal and response. In this case by 

680: $\mathord{\buildrel{\lower3pt\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightharpoonup$}}\over 

681: {f}} $ one should understand a sum of correlations over all times preceding 

682: the decision. This compensates for the presence of delays. So far there is 

683: no understanding if Eq.~(\ref{eq18}) [or (\ref{eq9})] can be used for topologies other 

684: than trees. Definition (\ref{eq14}), however, can be used with networks of 

685: arbitrary connectivity. This is the topic of the next section.

686: 

687: \section{DYNAMIC MODELS}

688: \label{dynamic}

689: 

690: All previous examples, except the one mentioned at the end of the last 

691: session, were static, i.e. variables did not depend on time. The deficiency 

692: of this approach is that it is not clear how to treat networks with loops. 

693: To apply our analysis to the cases with loops, and, in general, to 

694: networks with \textit{arbitrary} connectivity (Figure 10), we consider time-dependent models 

695: here. This allows us to observe propagation of noise around the loop 

696: explicitly and to make accurate conclusions about contributions to DM. 

697: 

698: We limit ourselves to linear dynamical systems, where the single nonlinear 

699: element is the last one, transforming an analog system output to a binary 

700: response. As the first step we consider temporal dynamics in the 

701: discrete-time approximation, which contains all essential features of our 

702: approach. Later in the section we extend discrete model to the 

703: continuous-time case and show their equivalence.

704: 

705: \begin{figure}[htbp]

706: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.0in]{dma12.eps}}

707: \caption{

708: The network topologies considered by the dynamic models. 

709: Arbitrary connectivities, such as cycles (left) or feedforward networks 

710: (right) can be considered. 

711: }

712: \label{fig10}

713: \end{figure}

714: 

715: 

716: \subsection{Discrete-time model}

717: \label{discrete}

718: 

719: In this section we consider a system of $N$ elements, whose activity at each 

720: instant is described by an $N$-dimensional column-vector $\vec {x}(t)$. Time 

721: has discrete values separated by an interval $\tau $. Therefore this model 

722: is called the discrete-time model. The values of activity at two neighboring 

723: time-slices are related by the connection matrix $\hat {C}$

724: \begin{equation}

725: \label{eq19}

726: \vec {x}(t+\tau )=\hat {C}\vec {x}(t)+\vec {\eta }(t)+\vec {s}(t)

727: \end{equation}

728: Here $\vec {\eta }(t)$ is the vector describing noise added to activity 

729: vector on each time-slice. The variable $\vec {s}(t)$ describes sensory 

730: input into the system. The rules of temporal evolution of activities 

731: described by this equation are general enough to include almost all 

732: interesting phenomena and mimic modeling of real systems on digital 

733: computers. In appendix B we will prove that this model is equivalent to systems with 

734: continuously defined time. 

735: 

736: Noise is specified by the parameter $\vec {\eta }(t)$, which has a zero mean 

737: and is defined by the correlation matrix 

738: \begin{equation}

739: \label{eq20}

740: \overline {\eta _i (t_1 )\eta _j (t_2 )} ={\cal N}_{ij} \delta _{t_1 ,t_2 } 

741: \end{equation}

742: We assume here that neighboring in time values on noise are not correlated, 

743: implying that we consider a system with white noise. This assumption can be 

744: easily relaxed and is used here to simplify the analysis. It becomes 

745: rigorously valid when time-interval $\tau $ is longer than the correlation 

746: time of noise. Further, if noise is specific to each neuron, the same-time 

747: correlation matrix $\hat {{\cal N}}$ is diagonal

748: \begin{equation}

749: \label{eq21}

750: {\cal N}_{ij} =\overline {\eta _i^2 } \delta _{ij} 

751: \end{equation}

752: This takes place i.e. when stochasticity is induced by probabilistic nature 

753: of synaptic vesicle release, in which case every two neurons receive 

754: uncorrelated fluctuating inputs. 

755: 

756: Some time after presentation of the stimulus [$\vec {s}(t)\ne 0$] the system 

757: is forced to make a decision through the following process. First, a scalar 

758: quantity 

759: \begin{equation}

760: \label{eq22}

761: y=\vec {v}^T\cdot \vec {x}(t)

762: \end{equation}

763: is evaluated. Here time corresponds to the instant, when the choice is to be 

764: made. The output metrics vector $\vec {v}$ describes the way in which 

765: system's activity affects motor response. In the simplest case, which was 

766: considered in the previous section, when a single element number $n$ evokes 

767: responses, $v_i =\delta _{in} $. In a more complex situation, when multiple 

768: areas/neurons have direct influence on decision, vector $\vec {v}$ has more 

769: than one non-zero element. On the second step, decision is made based on the 

770: sign of $y$

771: \begin{equation}

772: \label{eq23}

773: d=H(y)

774: \end{equation}

775: Thus, this model describes a two-alternative forced-choice task. 

776: 

777: Our system is completely defined by the following set of parameters: $\hat 

778: {C}$, $\vec {s}(t)$, $\hat {{\cal N}}$, and $\vec {v}$. As we have shown in 

779: the previous section, the presence of the stimulus is not required to define 

780: DM elements [Eq. (\ref{eq5})]. We therefore set $\vec {s}(t)$ to zero and are left 

781: with three parameters $\hat {C}$, $\hat {{\cal N}}$, and $\vec {v}$. We now 

782: are ready to determine DM elements in our simple model.

783: 

784: To find decision makers we will use Eq. (\ref{eq14}). In this case it becomes

785: \begin{equation}

786: \label{eq24}

787: DM_i ={\cal N}_{ii} \frac{\partial \sigma ^2(y)}{\partial {\cal N}_{ii} }

788: \end{equation}

789: Therefore, we need to evaluate the variability on the output from the system 

790: $\sigma ^2(y)$. This is accomplished if we notice that $y=\vec {v}^T\cdot 

791: \vec {x}(t)=\vec {x}^T(t)\cdot \vec {v}$ and 

792: \begin{equation}

793: \label{eq25}

794: \sigma ^2(y)=\vec {v}^T\cdot \overline {\vec {x}(t)\vec {x}^T(t)} \cdot \vec 

795: {v}=\vec {v}^T\hat {X}(t,t)\vec {v}

796: \end{equation}

797: Here we introduced the cross-correlation matrix defined as follows

798: \begin{equation}

799: \label{eq26}

800: \hat {X}(n,k)\equiv \overline {\vec {x}(n)\vec {x}^T(k)} =\overline {\left( 

801: {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}

802:  {x_1 } \hfill \\

803:  \vdots \hfill \\

804:  {x_N } \hfill \\

805: \end{array} }} \right)\left( {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}

806:  {x_1 } \hfill & \cdots \hfill & {x_N } \hfill \\

807: \end{array} }} \right)} 

808: \end{equation}

809: We replace here the time variable by the integers, specifying the time-slice 

810: number. The averaging in (\ref{eq25}) and (\ref{eq26}) is assumed over different 

811: instantiations of noise (trials). 

812: 

813: Due to the properties of noise in our model, this correlator does not depend 

814: on the absolute values of time ($n$ and $k)$, but only on the difference ($n - k)$. As 

815: follows from (\ref{eq25}), of particular interest is the same-time correlator $\hat 

816: {X}_0 \equiv \hat {X}(n,n)$, which determines fluctuations in $y$. We now 

817: derive equation for same-time correlator $\hat {X}_0 $.

818: 

819: Using (\ref{eq19}) we obtain

820: \begin{equation}

821: \label{eq27}

822: \begin{array}{l}

823:  \hat {X}_0 =\overline {\vec {x}(n+1)\vec {x}^T(n+1)} = \\ 

824:  =\overline {\left[ {\hat {C}\vec {x}(n)+\vec {\eta }(n)} \right]\left[ 

825: {\vec {x}^T(n)\hat {C}^T+\vec {\eta }^T(n)} \right]} \\ 

826:  \end{array}

827: \end{equation}

828: We then notice that the correlator $\overline {\vec {x}(n)\vec {\eta }^T(n)} 

829: $ is identically zero, since $\vec {x}(n)$ is a linear combination of values 

830: of noise at times $k<n$ [see Eq. (\ref{eq19})]. We thus deduce from Eq. (\ref{eq27}) that

831: \[

832: \hat {X}_0 =\overline {\hat {C}\vec {x}(n)\vec {x}^T(n)C^T} +\overline {\vec 

833: {\eta }(n)\vec {\eta }^T(n)} ,

834: \]

835: which leads us, finally, to 

836: \begin{equation}

837: \label{eq28}

838: \hat {X}_0 -\hat {C}\hat {X}_0 \hat {C}^T=\hat {{\cal N}}

839: \end{equation}

840: This equation allows us to determine the same-time correlator $\hat {X}_0 $ 

841: from connectivity and noise cross-correlogram, defined in (\ref{eq20}), which is a 

842: diagonal matrix.

843: 

844: We would like to pause here and describe the properties of this equation. 

845: First of all, in the most generic case (\ref{eq28}) allows us to determine $\hat 

846: {X}_0 $ from $\hat {C}$ and $\hat {{\cal N}}$ uniquely. Indeed, (\ref{eq28}) is a 

847: system of $N^2$ linear equations for $N^2$ unknowns $\hat {X}_0 $, arranged 

848: in the matrix form. Hence, this system, in most cases, can be solved 

849: uniquely. On the other hand, with one exception, $\hat {X}_0 $ cannot 

850: be expressed explicitly in terms of matrices $\hat {C}$ and $\hat {{\cal 

851: N}}$. Thus, one has to either appeal to the representation of $\hat {X}_0 $ 

852: in terms of eigenvectors and eigenvalues of $\hat {C}$, or use computer to 

853: arrange elements of matrix $\hat {X}_0 $ in vector form and solve resulting 

854: linear system.

855: 

856: The contribution to DM from a given element can be determined from Eq. (\ref{eq25})

857: \begin{equation}

858: \label{eq29}

859: DM_i ={\cal N}_{ii} \frac{\partial \sigma ^2(y)}{\partial {\cal N}_{ii} 

860: }=\vec {v}^T\frac{\partial \hat {X}_0 }{\partial \ln {\cal N}_{ii} }\vec 

861: {v}

862: \end{equation}

863: The topological DM contributions are

864: \begin{equation}

865: \label{eq30}

866: TDM_i =\vec {v}^T\frac{\partial \hat {X}_0 }{\partial {\cal N}_{ii} }\vec 

867: {v}

868: \end{equation}

869: Using Eqs. (\ref{eq28}) and (\ref{eq29}) one can analyze a variety of network 

870: connectivities. Some new effect emerging for non-tree systems are described 

871: next.

872: 

873: \subsection{Case 1: fan-out hub effect}

874: \label{fanout}

875: 

876: We now consider network shown in Figure 11A, in which all elements have the 

877: same variance of noise and all connections have unitary strength. Figure 11A 

878: shows two pathways from unit \textbf{2} to the exit unit, \textbf{6}. The 

879: resulting network gain from unit \textbf{2} to unit \textbf{6} is thus equal 

880: to two. All other units' gain at the exit is one. The contribution to DM 

881: from unit \textbf{2 }is thus four times larger that from other units. This 

882: is because noise at this unit is multiplied by a factor of two, and the 

883: variance of noise, by a factor of four. We conclude that there may be some 

884: special elements in network, which occupy hub-like positions, gaining large 

885: influence due to abundance of their outputs. It should be noted that fan-in 

886: hubs are not special from the point of view of DM in any way. 

887: 

888: 

889: 

890: \begin{figure}[htbp]

891: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.0in]{dma13.eps}}

892: %\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{dma14.eps}}

893: \caption{

894: Two cases, in which the identities of decision makers 

895: can be found using discrete-time approach. Variance of noise on all elements 

896: is the same; all network links have unitary strength. The degree of 

897: decision making is shown by the intensity of red. \textbf{A}, The fan-out 

898: effect. \textbf{B}, the temporal integrator.

899: }

900: \label{fig11}

901: \end{figure}

902: 

903: 

904: \subsection{Case 2: temporal integrator}

905: \label{integrator}

906: 

907: Let us now examine the network with a loop. Figure 11B shows such an example 

908: with unitary link strength and uniform noise variance, as in previous case. 

909: The presence of loop affects DM drastically: our discrete-time model marks 

910: units belonging to the loop as decision makers\footnote{ Rigorously 

911: speaking, the set of equations (\ref{eq28}) and (\ref{eq29}) does not have a valid 

912: solution for the loop with all connection equal to unity. One needs to set 

913: one of the connection as a parameter, $\alpha <1$, solve the equations, and 

914: consider the limit $\alpha \to 1 .$ }. This is easy to understand, since 

915: noise, generated by each unit on each time-step, cannot leave the loop and, 

916: therefore, builds up there without limits. Therefore the variance of noise 

917: in the output of element number three grows proportionally to time 

918: $\overline {\left[ {x_3 (t)-\overline {x_3 } (t)} \right]^2} =\overline 

919: {\eta ^2} t\to \infty $. Here averaging is assumed over instantiations of 

920: noise (trials). Thus, loop becomes the crucial decision maker. This case is 

921: somewhat analogous to our previous `noisy' neuron example.

922: 

923: What is the possible role of loops in biological networks? Why would one 

924: introduce such unreliable components? Loops, similar to shown in Figure 11B, 

925: have many useful properties. For instance, they can act as parametric memory 

926: systems. Indeed, imagine that responses of all units in the loop have the 

927: same values, equal to $x$. This could be accomplished by manipulating the 

928: sensory inputs. Assume that no more inputs are received from the outside of 

929: the system. It follows that, in the absence of noise on each element, this 

930: value of response will reverberate around the loop forever. This is because 

931: all links have unitary strength. Loops can thus memorize a graded value, 

932: such as $x$, functioning as parametric memory elements. 

933: 

934: Suppose, in addition, that a non-zero input $s$ is applied to element number 

935: \textbf{1} at all times. Since this element acts as a summator, its response 

936: on the next step is $x_1 (1)=x+s$. The signal $s$ propagates around the 

937: loop, and in four steps it reaches the first element again, at which time 

938: its response is $x_1 (5)=x+2s$. In four more steps $x_1 (9)=x+3s$. Thus, not 

939: only noise, but also signal can build up in the system. Therefore, a loop 

940: can operate as a temporal integrator. The integration is not perfect if one 

941: of the links has a non-unitary strength, in which case integrator becomes 

942: leaky (Robinson, 1989). 

943: 

944: Temporal integrators play special role in DM, since they act as accumulators 

945: of sensory information, which puts them into special position with respect 

946: to other areas (Gold and Shadlen, 2002). As an example, 

947: such is area LIP in primate visual cortex, which is involved in DM in 

948: direction-discrimination task 

949: (Shadlen and Newsome, 2001; Roitman and Shadlen, 2002; Mazurek et al., 2003). 

950: 

951: \subsection{Continuous-time model}

952: \label{continuous}

953: 

954: We finally consider a model, in which time runs continuously. This model has 

955: potential relevance to real-life networks. The responses of units satisfy 

956: the following equation

957: \begin{equation}

958: \label{eq31}

959: \frac{d\vec {x}(t)}{dt}=-\hat {A}\vec {x}(t)+\vec {\eta }(t)+\vec {s}(t).

960: \end{equation}

961: The network connectivity matrix $\hat {A}$ can be related to connection 

962: matrix from the discrete-time model in (\ref{eq19}) through $\hat {C}=e^{-\hat 

963: {A}\tau }$ (see Appendix B). Noise is defined by its cross-correlation

964: \begin{equation}

965: \label{eq32}

966: \overline {\eta _i (t_1 )\eta _j (t_2 )} ={\cal N}_{ij} \delta (t_1 -t_2 ),

967: \end{equation}

968: where 

969: \begin{equation}

970: \label{eq33}

971: \hat {{\cal N}}=\left( {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}

972:  {\overline {\eta _1^2 } } \hfill & \hfill & \hfill & 0 \hfill \\

973:  \hfill & {\overline {\eta _2^2 } } \hfill & \hfill & \hfill \\

974:  \hfill & \hfill & {...} \hfill & \hfill \\

975:  0 \hfill & \hfill & \hfill & {\overline {\eta _N^2 } } \hfill \\

976: \end{array} }} \right)

977: \end{equation}

978: is a diagonal cross-correlogram of noise. Eqs. (\ref{eq31})-(\ref{eq33}) are analogous 

979: to the discrete-time case (\ref{eq19})-(\ref{eq21}). Similarly, we define the output 

980: scalar and the decision variable

981: \[

982: y=\vec {v}^T \cdot \vec {x}(t)

983: \]

984: \begin{equation}

985: \label{eq34}

986: d=H(y).

987: \end{equation}

988: Here $t$ is time when the system makes the decision.

989: 

990: Our model is thus defined by Eqs. (\ref{eq31})-(\ref{eq34}). We will now use definition 

991: (\ref{eq29}) to find decision makers. As in discrete-time case we need to know the 

992: variance of the output variable, $\sigma ^2(y)$, after which (\ref{eq29}) leads to 

993: \begin{equation}

994: \label{eq35}

995: DM_i =\overline {\eta _i^2 } \frac{\partial \sigma ^2(y)}{\partial \overline 

996: {\eta _i^2 } }

997: \end{equation}

998: Important for us is the time-dependent correlator

999: \begin{equation}

1000: \label{eq36}

1001: \hat {X}(t_1 ,t_2 )=\overline {\vec {x}(t_1 )\vec {x}^T(t_2 )} ,

1002: \end{equation}

1003: which we now evaluate. Solution of (\ref{eq31}) is obtained using matrix 

1004: exponentials 

1005: \begin{equation}

1006: \label{eq37}

1007: \vec {x}(t)=\int\limits_{-\infty }^t {dt'e^{\hat {A}(t'-t)}\left[ {\vec 

1008: {\eta }(t)+\vec {s}(t)} \right]} 

1009: \end{equation}

1010: If external stimulus is zero or a constant in time, due to (\ref{eq5}), the 

1011: correlator at $t_1 >t_2 $

1012: \begin{equation}

1013: \label{eq38}

1014: \hat {X}(t_1 ,t_2 )=\int\limits_{-\infty }^{t_2 } {dt'e^{\hat {A}(t'-t_1 

1015: )}\hat {{\cal N}}e^{\hat {A}^T(t'-t_2 )}} 

1016: \end{equation}

1017: We seek $\hat {X}(t_1 ,t_2 )$ in the form

1018: \begin{equation}

1019: \label{eq39}

1020: \hat {X}=e^{\hat {A}(t_2 -t_1 )}\hat {X}_0 ,

1021: \end{equation}

1022: where $\hat {X}_0 $ is equal-time cross-correlation. To find equation for 

1023: $\hat {X}_0 $ we differentiate (\ref{eq38}) as follows

1024: \begin{equation}

1025: \label{eq40}

1026: \begin{array}{l}

1027:  \frac{\partial \hat {X}}{\partial t_2 }=\hat {A}e^{\hat {A}(t_2 -t_1 )}\hat 

1028: {X}_0 = \\ 

1029:  =e^{\hat {A}(t_2 -t_1 )}\hat {{\cal N}}-\hat {X}\hat {A}^T \\ 

1030:  \end{array}

1031: \end{equation}

1032: We arrive thus to the following equation for $\hat {X}_0 $

1033: \begin{equation}

1034: \label{eq41}

1035: \hat {A}\hat {X}_0 +\hat {X}_0 \hat {A}^T=\hat {{\cal N}}

1036: \end{equation}

1037: This equation is the central tool for the continuous-time theory. The 

1038: contributions to DM from each unit are found by differentiating $\sigma 

1039: ^2(y)=\vec {v}^T\hat {X}_0 \vec {v}$ with respect to noise, as in Eq. (\ref{eq29})

1040: \begin{equation}

1041: \label{eq42}

1042: DM_i ={\cal N}_{ii} \vec {v}^T\frac{\partial \hat {X}_0 }{\partial {\cal 

1043: N}_{ii} }\vec {v}

1044: \end{equation}

1045: Once the same-time correlation matrix $\hat {X}_0 $ is found from Eq. 

1046: (\ref{eq41}), cross-correlation for arbitrary time is 

1047: \begin{equation}

1048: \label{eq43}

1049: \hat {X}(t_1 ,t_2 )=\left\{ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}

1050:  {e^{\hat {A}(t_2 -t_1 )}\hat {X}_0 ,} \hfill & {t_1 \ge t_2 } \hfill \\

1051:  {\hat {X}_0 e^{\hat {A}^T(t_1 -t_2 )},} \hfill & {t_1 <t_2 } \hfill \\

1052: \end{array} }} \right.

1053: \end{equation}

1054: This equation suggests a helpful strategy for determining noise matrix $\hat 

1055: {{\cal N}}$. Indeed, (\ref{eq41}) and (\ref{eq43}) imply that

1056: \begin{equation}

1057: \label{eq44}

1058: \hat {{\cal N}}=\left. {\frac{\partial \hat {X}(t_1 ,t_2 )}{\partial t_1 }} 

1059: \right|_{t_1 =t_2 -\varepsilon } \left. {-\frac{\partial \hat {X}(t_1 ,t_2 

1060: )}{\partial t_1 }} \right|_{t_1 =t_2 +\varepsilon } 

1061: \end{equation}

1062: Here $\varepsilon $ is infinitesimally small positive number. In other 

1063: words, noise matrix is equal to discontinuity in time-derivative of 

1064: cross-correlation at $t_1 =t_2 $. Since noise correlation matrix is 

1065: diagonal, the non-zero elements are 

1066: \begin{equation}

1067: \label{eq45}

1068: \overline {\eta _i^2 } =\left. {\frac{\partial X_{ii} (t_1 ,t_2 )}{\partial 

1069: t_1 }} \right|_{t_1 =t_2 -\varepsilon } \left. {-\frac{\partial X_{ii} (t_1 

1070: ,t_2 )}{\partial t_1 }} \right|_{t_1 =t_2 +\varepsilon } 

1071: \end{equation}

1072: Two comments are in order here. First, noise term $\vec {\eta }(t)$ plays 

1073: the role of input noise in (\ref{eq31}). It cannot be measured directly. Equation 

1074: (\ref{eq44}) provides a way to single it out. Second, (\ref{eq44}) does not apply to the 

1075: discrete-time model. Indeed, in the latter we either have $t_1 =t_2 $, or 

1076: $t_1 =t_2 \pm 1$, etc., i.e. the condition $t_1 =t_2 \pm \varepsilon $ with 

1077: $\varepsilon $ infinitesimally small is hard to enforce. It may happen that 

1078: $\varepsilon \approx 1$ is acceptable due to presence of slow components in 

1079: the circuit, such as temporal integrators. However, in general case (\ref{eq44}) 

1080: cannot be applied to the discrete-time case. For instance, it fails 

1081: dramatically for the case of `nematode' chain considered above.

1082: 

1083: Equations (\ref{eq41}), (\ref{eq42}), and (\ref{eq44}) represent a useful set of tools to find 

1084: DM components for various connectivities. We present here two possible 

1085: cases, in which decision makers can be found. They differ in what is known 

1086: about the system.

1087: 

1088: \underline {\textbf{Scenario 1:}} Assume we know the network connectivity 

1089: $\hat {A}$, output metrics vector $\vec {v}$, and autocorrelation for each 

1090: unit $X_{ii} (t_1 ,t_2 )$. The steps below allow finding the 

1091: decision makers.

1092: 

1093: \begin{enumerate}

1094: \item Since noise matrix is diagonal, as per (\ref{eq33}), it can be found from autocorrelation using (\ref{eq44}). 

1095: \item Solving (\ref{eq41}) allows determining $\partial \hat {X}_0 /\partial {\cal N}{ }_{ii}$, the derivative of equal-time crosscorrelation with respect to noise in each element. 

1096: \item Decision makers are found from (\ref{eq42}).

1097: \item Normalize contributions to DM so that $\sum\limits_i {DM_i =1} $.

1098: \end{enumerate}

1099: 

1100: Scenario 1 does not require simultaneous measurements from all units. It 

1101: requires the knowledge of the network connectivity however. The next 

1102: scenario is complimentary in this respect.

1103: 

1104: \underline {\textbf{Scenario 2:}} Suppose we have measured the full 

1105: crosscorrelation matrix $\hat {X}(t_1 ,t_2 )$ by simultaneous recordings 

1106: from all units. Suppose also that we know how the output of the system is 

1107: evaluated (vector $\vec {v})$. These are the steps to determine DM units.

1108: 

1109: \begin{enumerate}

1110: \item Use (\ref{eq44}) to find noise matrix $\hat {{\cal N}}$.

1111: \item Use (\ref{eq41}) to find the connection matrix $\hat {A}$.

1112: \item Solve (\ref{eq41}) to calculate $\partial \hat {X}_0 /\partial {\cal N}{ }_{ii}$ for each element.

1113: \item Use (\ref{eq42}) to find decision makers. 

1114: \item Normalize contributions to DM so that $\sum\limits_i {DM_i =1} $.

1115: \end{enumerate}

1116: 

1117: Both scenarios use extensive knowledge about the system, which renders them 

1118: useless in experimental conditions. In the next subsection we discuss a way 

1119: to bypass these limitations.

1120: 

1121: Finally, we would like to provide solution to (\ref{eq41}) using eigenbasis of 

1122: matrix $\hat {A}$. Since $\hat {A}$ is not necessarily symmetric, a 

1123: distinction should be made between right and left eigenvectors. The latter 

1124: turn out to be useful for our purposes. They are defined by 

1125: \begin{equation}

1126: \label{eq46}

1127: \vec {\xi }_\alpha ^+ \hat {A}=\lambda _\alpha \vec {\xi }_\alpha ^+ .

1128: \end{equation}

1129: Here and below Greek indexes denote numbers of eigenvalues, while Latin ones 

1130: label spatial components of vectors and matrices. Solution of (\ref{eq41}) is

1131: 

1132: \begin{equation}

1133: \label{eq46_5}

1134: %X_{0ij} =\sum\limits_{{\begin{array}{*{20}c}

1135: % {\alpha \beta \gamma \delta } \hfill \\

1136: % {mn} \hfill \\

1137: %\end{array} }} {\frac{\xi _{i\alpha } \xi _{j\beta }^\ast \xi _{m\gamma 

1138: %}^\ast \xi _{n\delta } }{\lambda _\gamma +\lambda _\delta ^\ast }} \left( 

1139: %{G^{-1}} \right)_{\alpha \gamma } \left( {G^{-1}} \right)_{\beta \delta 

1140: %}^\ast {\cal N}_{mn} ,

1141: X_{0ij} =\sum\limits_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \\ \\mn} {\frac{\xi _{i\alpha } \xi _{j\beta }^\ast \xi _{m\gamma 

1142: }^\ast \xi _{n\delta } }{\lambda _\gamma +\lambda _\delta ^\ast }} \left( 

1143: {G^{-1}} \right)_{\alpha \gamma } \left( {G^{-1}} \right)_{\beta \delta 

1144: }^\ast {\cal N}_{mn} ,

1145: \end{equation}

1146: where

1147: \begin{equation}

1148: \label{eq47}

1149: G_{\alpha \beta } =\sum\limits_i {\xi _{i\alpha }^\ast \xi _{i\beta } } 

1150: \end{equation}

1151: is the Gram matrix of eigenvectors. Eq. (\ref{eq46_5}) is valid if the eigenvectors form

1152: a complete basis in the $N$-dimensional space. As follows from (\ref{eq46_5}), eigenvalues of 

1153: $\hat {A}$ with small real part contribute to DM in a large degree. This 

1154: justifies the use of principal component analysis when such eigenvalues are 

1155: present. An example of such principal component is the temporal integrator 

1156: loop in Figure 11B, which has vanishing $\lambda $. 

1157: 

1158: In case if matrix $\hat {A}$ is symmetric, its eigenvalues are real and 

1159: eigenvectors are orthogonal. This leads to a unit Gram matrix. Then, Eq. 

1160: (3.29) becomes more compact

1161: \begin{equation}

1162: \label{eq48}

1163: X_{0ij} =\sum\limits_{

1164:  {\alpha \beta } 

1165:  {mn} } {\frac{\xi _{i\alpha } \xi _{j\beta }^\ast \xi _{m\alpha 

1166: }^\ast \xi _{n\beta } }{\lambda _\alpha +\lambda _\beta }} {\cal N}_{mn} 

1167: \end{equation}

1168: Similar equations, called Kubo formulas, are obtained for various 

1169: correlators in case of diffusion of particles in random media 

1170: (Efetov, 1997). The distinguishing feature of (\ref{eq48}) is that 

1171: a product of four eigenvectors enters the expression. Thus, propagation of 

1172: noise in this case can be accompanied by interference between different 

1173: pathways. An example of destructive interference of this kind is given 

1174: below, in section \ref{stimulation}. 

1175: 

1176: Eq. (\ref{eq48}) can be further simplified. Indeed, our model uses diagonal noise 

1177: matrices, i.e. $n=m$ in (\ref{eq48}). Suppose also that the output from the 

1178: network occurs through one exit element number $i$, which is specified by 

1179: taking $\vec {v}=\hat {e}_i $. In this case the use of Eq. (\ref{eq42}) gives

1180: \begin{equation}

1181: \label{eq49}

1182: DM_i ={\cal N}_{nn} \sum\limits_{\alpha \beta } {\frac{\xi _{i\alpha } \xi 

1183: _{i\beta }^\ast \xi _{n\alpha }^\ast \xi _{n\beta } }{\lambda _\alpha 

1184: +\lambda _\beta }} .

1185: \end{equation}

1186: From this equation we conclude that for element $n$ to contribute to DM, an 

1187: eigenvector should exist, which is non-zero on both unit number $n$ and exit 

1188: unit $i$. Thus, we conclude that eigenvectors of $\hat {A}$ should be 

1189: delocalized for broader impact of elements on the decision. This is not 

1190: surprising in view of the mentioned analogy with the diffusion problem. In 

1191: case if matrix $\hat {A}$ is not symmetric, the Gram matrix may be non-diagonal 

1192: and (\ref{eq49}) cannot be used. However, the off-diagonal elements of $\hat {G}$ 

1193: are usually smaller than diagonal ones, due to uncorrelated sign changes, 

1194: when (\ref{eq47}) is computed with $\alpha \ne \beta $. Therefore, (\ref{eq49}) may 

1195: apply approximately. 

1196: 

1197: \section{Analysis using stimulation}

1198: \label{stimulation}

1199: 

1200: Stimulations with electric current add a new degree of freedom to DMA, thus 

1201: leading to more effective ways of finding decision makers. There are two 

1202: great advantages of the stimulation method. First, it only involves 

1203: stimulation of a single neuron, therefore no simultaneous multiple-electrode 

1204: measurements are required. Second, the knowledge of network connectivity is 

1205: not needed to solve the problem. In this section we study our simple 

1206: networks and find what stimulation strategies are consistent with our 

1207: earlier definitions, such as Eq. (\ref{eq14}). 

1208: 

1209: We will use continuous model for concreteness (section \ref{continuous}). Consider the 

1210: output variable $y$. It is a linear function of the inputs. It is also a 

1211: function, which contains noise components, variable from trial to trial. The 

1212: noise components were acquired from all units in different degree. Since 

1213: noise in each unit is gaussian, the output variable is described by gaussian 

1214: distribution too

1215: \begin{equation}

1216: \label{eq50}

1217: \rho (y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt {2\pi \sigma ^2(y)} }

1218: e^{-(y-\bar {y}(s))^2/2\sigma ^2(y)}

1219: \end{equation}

1220: In each trial a random value of $y$ is obtained, according to distribution 

1221: (\ref{eq50}). The response of the system is equal to 1 if $y$ is positive, and 

1222: 0 otherwise. The probability to obtain response equal to 1 to given 

1223: stimulus $s$ is given by the error function (Abramowitz and 

1224: Stegun, 1972)

1225: \begin{equation}

1226: \label{eq50_5}

1227: p_1 (s)=\int\limits_0^\infty {\rho (y)dy} =\frac{1}{2}\left[ 

1228: {1+\mbox{erf}\left( {\frac{\bar {y}(s)}{\sigma (y)\sqrt 2 }} \right)} 

1229: \right],

1230: \end{equation}

1231: whereas the probability of zero response is 

1232: \begin{equation}

1233: \label{eq51}

1234: p_0 (s)=\int\limits_{-\infty }^0 {\rho (y)dy} =\frac{1}{2}\left[ 

1235: {1-\mbox{erf}\left( {\frac{\bar {y}(s)}{\sigma (y)\sqrt 2 }} \right)} \right].

1236: \end{equation}

1237: Both probabilities depend upon the mean response to stimulus $\bar {y}(s)$ 

1238: and the standard deviation $\sigma (y)$. Therefore the electric stimulation 

1239: strategies may be based on affecting either the former or the latter. We now 

1240: consider both of these strategies and show that affecting the mean response 

1241: may provide misleading results, while changing the variance of response 

1242: allows estimating contributions to DM consistently with our previous 

1243: definitions. Thus, strategies of stimulation based on standard deviation of 

1244: the output variable are \textit{always} correct in our simple model, independently on the 

1245: topology of the network. This may seem a trivial consequence of definition 

1246: (\ref{eq14}), but we will discuss it here for the sake of comparison of two 

1247: strategies and optimizing them.

1248: 

1249: We start with the strategies of stimulation, which affect the mean response 

1250: $\bar {y}(s)$. In our simple model this may be accomplished by injecting a 

1251: tonic input current into a unit number $i$. Mathematically it is 

1252: accomplished by adding extra stimulus $s_i $ to this unit in Eq. (\ref{eq31}). 

1253: Note that in biological systems the stimulating current is alternating with 

1254: constant amplitude (Salzman et al., 1992). The 

1255: mean response is shifted by the stimulation, i.e.

1256: \begin{equation}

1257: \label{eq52}

1258: \Delta \bar {y}=\frac{\partial \bar {y}}{\partial s_i }s_i ,

1259: \end{equation}

1260: where $s_i $ is the magnitude of injected tonic current. This leads to 

1261: observable changes in the probability $p_1 $

1262: \begin{equation}

1263: \label{eq53}

1264: \Delta p_1 (i)=\frac{\partial p}{\partial \bar {y}}\frac{\partial \bar 

1265: {y}}{\partial s_i }s_i .

1266: \end{equation}

1267: Here $\Delta p_1 (i)$ is the change in probability of correct responses 

1268: after unit number $i$ is electrically stimulated. Can $\Delta p_1 (i)$ be a 

1269: measure of DM? 

1270: 

1271: We notice that $\Delta p_1 (i)$ can be either positive or negative. This 

1272: depends on the sign of derivative $\partial \bar {y}/\partial s_i $, which 

1273: is positive for excitatory pathway from unit $i$ to the output and negative 

1274: for inhibitory pathway. Since contribution to DM ought to be positive, we 

1275: cannot assume simply that $DM_i \sim \Delta p_1 (i)$. The correct 

1276: expression, which we provide here without derivation is 

1277: \begin{equation}

1278: \label{eq54}

1279: DM_i \sim \overline {\eta _i^2 } \left[ {\Delta p_1 (i)} \right]^2.

1280: \end{equation}

1281: This equation is understood in proportional sense, since $DM_i $ should be 

1282: normalized to ensure that $\sum\limits_i {DM_i } =1$. Our 

1283: investigations show that this expression is accurate for trees and is 

1284: consistent with both our earlier definitions (\ref{eq9}) or (\ref{eq14}). Remarkably, it 

1285: employs quantities, which can be measured in a single-electrode experiment. 

1286: Indeed, the amplitude of noise $\overline {\eta _i^2 } $ can be found from 

1287: autocorrelation of unit's response, using (\ref{eq44}); and $\Delta p_1 (i)$ is 

1288: determined from behavioral changes in response to single-unit stimulation. 

1289: This equation thus provides an approach potentially useful in practice. Does 

1290: this relationship work for networks of arbitrary connectivity? 

1291: 

1292: Figure 12B shows a counterexample, in which a unit is stimulated, which 

1293: results in \textit{no} change in probability of correct response (we consider trials in which 1 is the correct response throughout this section). 

1294: This is because there are two pathways, leading from this unit to the exit, one positive and one 

1295: negative. They have equal strength, and, therefore, compensate each other. 

1296: On the other hand, unit number one \textit{does} participate is DM, because if a 

1297: non-stationary stimulation/stimulus is applied, its effect on the decision 

1298: is not zero. Thus, (\ref{eq54}) and tonic stimulation method cannot be applied to 

1299: arbitrary circuits, such as shown in Figure 12B, to accurately reveal 

1300: decision makers.

1301: 

1302: 

1303: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1304: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma15.eps}}

1305: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{dma16.eps}}

1306: %\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.67in]{dma17.eps}}

1307: %\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.76in]{dma18.eps}}

1308: \caption{Finding decision makers using electric stimulation. 

1309: \textbf{A} and \textbf{B}, tonic stimulation; \textbf{C}, random 

1310: stimulation. \textbf{A}, tonic stimulation for trees results in shift in 

1311: probability, which leads to correct estimation of decision making units. 

1312: \textbf{B}, example of a circuit for which tonic stimulation leads to 

1313: incorrect estimation of decision making, since it does not lead to the shift 

1314: in probability. \textbf{C}, stimulation with a random current leads to 

1315: correct estimate of decision making for networks with \textit{any} connectivity. 

1316: \textbf{D}, for optimal performance in random stimulation paradigm, the task 

1317: should be set so that the probability of correct responses is close to 

1318: $p_{optimal} \approx 0.84$.

1319: }

1320: \label{fig12}

1321: \end{figure}

1322: 

1323: 

1324: 

1325: Is there a stimulation method for finding decision making components in 

1326: arbitrary networks? The method follows directly from the definition (\ref{eq14}) 

1327: [or (\ref{eq35}), which is equivalent]. Indeed, when stimulating current is a 

1328: temporal white noise, the output variable $y$ acquires a larger variance 

1329: (Figure 12C). Hence, the derivative of output variance, entering (\ref{eq35}) can 

1330: be calculated operationally, by injecting a distracter current. More 

1331: precisely, if the variance of stimulating current applied to unit $i$ is 

1332: $\overline {s_i^2 } $ the derivative entering definition (\ref{eq35}) is 

1333: \begin{equation}

1334: \label{eq55}

1335: \frac{\partial \sigma ^2(y)} {\partial \overline {\eta _i^2 } } = 

1336: \frac{\Delta \sigma^2 (y)} {\overline {s_i^2 } }.

1337: \end{equation}

1338: In practice one has no access to the variable $y$, so one cannot measure 

1339: directly the change in variance $\Delta \sigma^2 (y)$. Instead, one could 

1340: measure the change in the probability of correct responses under the 

1341: influence of distracting current. Indeed, from (\ref{eq50_5}) we obtain

1342: \begin{equation}

1343: \label{eq56}

1344: \Delta p_1 (i) = \frac{\partial p_1 } {\partial \sigma^2 (y) } \Delta \sigma^2 (y)

1345: \end{equation}

1346: Combining the last two equations we obtain for the important derivative

1347: \begin{equation}

1348: \label{eq57}

1349: \frac{\partial \sigma ^2(y)}{\partial \overline {\eta _i^2 } }=\frac{\Delta 

1350: p_1 (i)}{\overline {s_i^2 } }\left( {\frac{\partial p_1 }{\partial \sigma 

1351: ^2(y)}} \right)^{-1}

1352: \end{equation}

1353: Since the probability of correct responses always decreases under the 

1354: influence of distracters, the derivative $\partial p_1 /\partial \sigma 

1355: ^2(y)$ is a negative constant. It is the same for all units. We arrive 

1356: therefore to the expression for contributions to DM, which follows from 

1357: (\ref{eq35})

1358: \begin{equation}

1359: \label{eq58}

1360: DM_i \sim -\overline {\eta _i^2 } \frac{\Delta p_1 (i)}{\overline {s_i^2 } 

1361: }

1362: \end{equation}

1363: Here $\Delta p_1 (i)$ is the decrease in probability of correct responses 

1364: produced by electric stimulation with variance of the random current equal 

1365: to $\overline {s_i^2 } $. The variance of noise on each unit $\overline {\eta 

1366: _i^2 } $ can be found from autocorrelation using (\ref{eq45}). This procedure 

1367: works for any topology in our simplified model. It should be noted here that 

1368: if noise is not entirely white or cannot be considered white, (\ref{eq45}) cannot 

1369: be used directly and should be replaced by an expression reflecting the 

1370: spectral characteristics of noise appropriate for the system under 

1371: investigation. Thus, if noise is provided by other parts of the network, its 

1372: dynamic features may be more complex. Therefore, (\ref{eq45}) may not apply 

1373: directly to the `hidden pathway' example given in the end of section \ref{conclusions}.

1374: 

1375: The procedure, which we just described, permits further optimization. 

1376: Indeed, imagine that the probability of correct responses is exactly 

1377: $\raise.5ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 1$}\kern-.1em/ 

1378: \kern-.15em\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 2$} $. Adding distracting 

1379: stimulation current will not change this probability, i.e. $\Delta p_1 

1380: (i)=0$ no matter what unit is stimulated. In the opposite limiting case when 

1381: $p_1 \approx 1$, the effect of distracter on performance is exponentially 

1382: small. Hence, behavioral response to stimulation has an optimum between $p_1 

1383: =1/2$ and $1$. To find the optimum we observe from (\ref{eq56}) that $\Delta p_1 $ 

1384: is maximum for the same variation in $\Delta \sigma ^2(y)$ when $\partial 

1385: p_1 /\partial \sigma ^2(y)$ is maximum. We therefore plot the latter 

1386: derivative as a function of $p_1 $ in Figure 12D. We indeed observe a 

1387: maximum at the value of probability of correct responses close to

1388: \begin{equation}

1389: \label{eq59}

1390: p_{optimal} \approx 0.841

1391: \end{equation}

1392: To summarize, the following scenario describes algorithm for finding 

1393: contributions to DM using random stimulation.

1394: 

1395: \underline {\textbf{Scenario 3:}} Assume that we \textit{do not know} the network connectivity 

1396: $\hat {A}$ and output metrics vector $\vec {v}$; but we know autocorrelation 

1397: for each unit $X_{ii} (t_1 ,t_2 )$. The steps below allow finding the 

1398: decision makers.

1399: 

1400: \begin{enumerate}

1401: \item Prepare stimulus so that the probability of correct responses is close to the value given by (\ref{eq59}).

1402: \item Stimulate one unit with random current, whose variance is $\overline {s_i^2 } $, and measure the decrease in probability of correct responses $\Delta p_1 $.

1403: \item Record autocorrelation and evaluate noise variance $\overline {\eta _i^2 } $ for this unit using (\ref{eq45}). 

1404: \item Find contribution to DM for this unit using equation (\ref{eq58}).

1405: \item Repeat steps 1 through 4 for all units in the system.

1406: \item Normalize contributions to DM so that $\sum\limits_i {DM_i =1} $.

1407: \end{enumerate}

1408: 

1409: \section{Discussion}

1410: \label{discussion}

1411: 

1412: In this work we defined decision makers in networks, which behave in a well-defined fashion.

1413: As with any definition, there is certain degree of arbitrariness in our study, 

1414: since this is the first mathematical study of this sort.

1415: We had to make choices about the features of decision making we 

1416: were attempting to describe as well as about the way they were quantified. 

1417: We demonstrated these features in a set of examples.

1418: Future studies will show if these features can be used as a basis of a more complete 

1419: model-independent theory.  

1420: 

1421: 

1422: In this study we postulated that variability and noise, causally linked to decisions, 

1423: are the chief descriptors of DM. Although this point may seem paradoxical we 

1424: suggest three arguments in its favor. First, variability may reflect 

1425: additional information needed to make a decision in case of uncertainty. 

1426: Such may be inputs from other modalities, memories, or some other relevant 

1427: modulatory inputs, supplying e.g. emotional condition of the subject 

1428: or changing utility values (Figure 8). Second, many behaviors, such as C-start 

1429: escape responses in fish (Eaton and Emberley, 1991) and 

1430: other organisms (Glimcher, 2003), have stochastic character. 

1431: This makes the task of pursuer more difficult.

1432: Such unpredictable behaviors are reproduced in our model if the sensory input is weak 

1433: or in the small signal-to-noise ratio case. Third, 

1434: the goal of DM is to dissipate sensory information, as suggested in the 

1435: introduction (Figure 1A), whereby an analog multi-dimensional stimulus space 

1436: is reduced to a discrete space of several decisions. We argue that 

1437: this transformation is facilitated by noise.

1438: 

1439: We have studied the problem of finding decision making units in 

1440: networks of various connectivities. This path took us from simple linear chains, for which 

1441: the information-theoretical (IT) approach was found to be effective, to trees, and, finally to   

1442: an alternative definition of decision makers, based on propagation of noise in networks. 

1443: This latter definition is valid in networks of arbitrary topology. 

1444: All these approaches are equivalent,

1445: when they can be compared, but include progressively broader classes of networks.

1446: As a practical application for the alternative definition we 

1447: considered the problem of electric stimulation in the surrogate networks and 

1448: showed a way of determining DM contributions for arbitrary networks using 

1449: stimulation with random current. Our findings are summarized in Figures 13 and 14. 

1450: 

1451: 

1452: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1453: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{dma19.eps}}

1454: \caption{

1455: The cluster of problems covered in this study. 

1456: Solid/dashed arrows show the derivations performed here/yet to be confirmed 

1457: or denied. IT stands for information-theoretical.

1458: }

1459: \label{fig13}

1460: \end{figure}

1461: 

1462: Although we studied networks of complex connectivity,

1463: the model describing a single network element was quite simple. 

1464: Not all of the units are linear, of course, since DM is a non-linear task 

1465: (Figure 1A). However, our model is essentially based on linear elements. The 

1466: motivation for this model is that it is easy to analyze. The study of 

1467: simple models is a necessary step before analysis proceeds any further. 

1468: Once the methodological issues are resolved for simpler models, complex 

1469: non-linear systems can be studied in the same paradigm. 

1470: One of important questions resolved here is that a completely linear element 

1471: can be a decision maker, despite the presence of non-linear units in the 

1472: network. Thus, nonlinearity is not a necessary attribute of DM. This question 

1473: would be impossible to answer for more realistic system, since in practice 

1474: all units contain nonlinearities. 

1475: 

1476: %In this study we obtained identities of decision makers using correlations 

1477: %with the response. An alternative approach would be to consider correlations 

1478: %with sensory inputs and to surmise that the points, where such correlations 

1479: %disappear are responsible for making decisions. It is clear, however, that 

1480: %some pathway between the unit and motor response is necessary for the unit 

1481: %to impact DM. If such pathway exists, our analysis can be applied. If the 

1482: %pathway does not exist, the approach, involving sensory correlations 

1483: %produces misleading results. On the other hand, it is possible that a 

1484: %combined sensory-motor approach would be more useful. This question warrants 

1485: %further investigation. 

1486: 

1487: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1488: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{dma20.eps}}

1489: \caption{Comparison between different approaches studied here.}

1490: \label{fig20}

1491: \end{figure}

1492: 

1493: 

1494: 

1495: 

1496: 

1497: Decision making task, as formulated in Figure 1A, is similar to general 

1498: object discrimination task. Representation of motor response in our model is 

1499: not distinguishable mathematically from the representation of abstract 

1500: object/decision category (Horwitz and 

1501: Newsome, 1998; Shadlen and Newsome, 2001). The latter does not necessarily 

1502: lead to a motor command. Thus, our analysis may uncover the identities of 

1503: units responsible for categorization of sensory inputs. In terms of this 

1504: analysis we emphasize the distinction between units representing the object 

1505: category and the units in which this representation is actually formed. The 

1506: former are analogous to motor units in the decision task, while the latter 

1507: are similar to decision makers. As follows from this study, the analysis is 

1508: dependent upon the topology of the network involved. For simple linear 

1509: sensory chains our conclusion is that the \textit{first} unit, spatially or temporally, in 

1510: which the representation of the object is correlated with final outcome of 

1511: the discrimination process, is responsible for casting the stimulus in one 

1512: of the abstract classes. In case of recurrent networks a more detailed 

1513: quantitative analysis is needed to draw conclusions about identities of 

1514: categorizing units. Thus, DMA may find a broader use in identifying units 

1515: representing abstract object's percepts. 

1516: 

1517: A special care should be taken in distinguishing the DM task from the 

1518: sensory discrimination task. It may occur that in the same experiment these 

1519: tasks are performed by different populations of neurons. An example is given 

1520: by (Salinas and Romo, 1998). They discovered a population of M1 

1521: neurons responding differentially to two categories of tactile stimuli. Some 

1522: of these neurons did not respond, when the same behavior was guided by 

1523: visual cues. This observation is consistent with these neurons performing 

1524: sensory discrimination of tactile stimuli, 

1525: while some other population making decisions about the actual motor response.  

1526: Our mathematical analysis is general enough to include both 

1527: of these functions. Thus, if correlations with motor response are 

1528: studied, it will result in the decision makers; while when the correlations 

1529: with percepts are investigated, DMA should provide the identities of 

1530: discriminating elements.

1531: 

1532: We suggest that DMA may be relevant to other biological systems. 

1533: Possible applications may include the analysis of molecular networks, such 

1534: as genetic regulatory or protein binding networks; finding decision makers 

1535: in compartmental models of dentritic trees (Poirazi and Mel, 

1536: 2001); studies of neural networks and structural networks of connectivities 

1537: between different brain areas; and analysis of social networks. 

1538: 

1539: 

1540: 

1541: 

1542: \section{Conclusion}

1543: \label{gen_conclusion}

1544: 

1545: In this study we define network elements responsible for making decisions. 

1546: We obtain two equivalent definitions. According to one, decisions are made 

1547: by elements, in which correlations with the decision are first formed. 

1548: According to the second definition, decision making activity is measured by 

1549: the impact of variability in given unit on the response. We give examples of 

1550: network motifs, especially potent from decision making prospective, such as 

1551: fan-out hubs and recurrent loops. The latter can function as temporal 

1552: integrators of sensory inputs. We also study how electric stimulations can 

1553: reveal decision making components. We conclude that stimulations with 

1554: time-varying random current produce correct results for all network 

1555: topologies. 

1556: 

1557: 

1558: 

1559: 

1560: \appendix

1561: 

1562: \section{The linear chain model.}

1563: \label{appendixa}

1564: 

1565: Here we solve a more general version of linear chain model than considered 

1566: in the text. The responses of neighboring neurons are related linearly 

1567: \begin{equation}

1568: x_i =C_{i-1} x_{i-1} +\eta _i

1569: \label{Eqa1}

1570: \end{equation}

1571: This is a generalization of (\ref{eq1}). The response of the $n$th unit is 

1572: \begin{equation}

1573: x_n =\sum\limits_{i=1}^n {\alpha _{ni}\eta _i } +\alpha _{n0}x_0

1574: \label{Eqa2}

1575: \end{equation}

1576: where coefficients $\alpha _{ni} =C_{n-1} C_{n-2} \ldots C_i $, $\alpha 

1577: _{nn} =1$. The external signal $x_0 $ is assumed to be zero in this 

1578: appendix, due to (\ref{eq5}). For the last element in the chain we have 

1579: \begin{equation}

1580: x_N =\sum\limits_{i=1}^N {\alpha _{Ni}\eta _i } .

1581: \label{Eqa3}

1582: \end{equation}

1583: 

1584: 

1585: Comparing (\ref{Eqa2}) and (\ref{Eqa3}) we conclude that 

1586: \begin{equation}

1587: x_N =\alpha _{Nn} x_n +\xi ,

1588: \label{Eqa4}

1589: \end{equation}

1590: where $\xi $ is a variable, which describes noise in the networks downstream 

1591: from unit $n$. It is, thus, uncorrelated with $x_n $. This is where 

1592: tree-like topology enters our solution, since in case of loops, $x_n $ and 

1593: $\xi $ are correlated. Our goal now is to calculate MI between the decision 

1594: variable $d=H(x_N )$ and $x_n $. We will use the definition for MI 

1595: \begin{equation}

1596: MI(d,x_n )=\sum\limits_{d=0,1} {\int\limits_{-\infty }^\infty {dx_n \rho 

1597: \left( {d,x_n } \right)\log _2 \left[ {\frac{\rho \left( {d,x_n } 

1598: \right)}{\rho (d)\rho (x_n )}} \right]} }

1599: \label{Eqa6}

1600: \end{equation}

1601: Here $\rho \left( d \right)=1/2$, since there is no signal;

1602: \begin{equation}

1603: \rho \left( {x_n } \right)=\exp \left( {-x_n^2 /2\overline {x_n^2 } } 

1604: \right)/\left( {2\pi \overline {x_n^2 } } \right)^{1/2}

1605: \label{Eqa8}

1606: \end{equation}

1607: and

1608: \begin{equation}

1609: \rho (d;x_n )=\frac{\rho (x_n )}{2}\left[ {1\pm \mbox{erf}\left( 

1610: {\frac{\alpha _{Nn} x_n }{\sigma \left( \xi \right)\sqrt 2 }} \right)} 

1611: \right].

1612: \label{Eqa9}

1613: \end{equation}

1614: The upper/lower sign is assumed for $d=0$ or $1$ in (\ref{Eqa9}); $\sigma (\xi )$ 

1615: is the standard deviation of Gaussian variable $\xi $ defined in (\ref{Eqa4}). The 

1616: expression for MI (\ref{Eqa6}) results in 

1617: \begin{equation}

1618: \begin{array}{l}

1619:  MI_n =M(s_n ) \\ 

1620:  M(s_n )=\frac{1}{\sqrt \pi }\int\limits_{-\infty }^\infty {dze^{-z^2}\left[ 

1621: {1+\mbox{erf}\left( {zs_n } \right)} \right]} \log _2 \left[ 

1622: {1+\mbox{erf}\left( {zs_n } \right)} \right] \\ 

1623:  s_n =\sigma (\alpha _{Nn} x_n )/\sigma (\xi ). \\ 

1624:  \end{array}

1625: \label{Eqa11}

1626: \end{equation}

1627: MI is therefore a function of signal-to-noise ratio $s_n$. Inversely, 

1628: \begin{equation}

1629: s_n^2 =\frac{\alpha _{Nn}^2 \overline {x_n^2 } }{\overline {\xi ^2} }=\left[ 

1630: {M^{-1}(MI_n )} \right]^2

1631: \label{Eqa12}

1632: \end{equation}

1633: On the other hand, (\ref{Eqa4}) leads to 

1634: \begin{equation}

1635: \overline {x_N^2 } =\alpha _{Nn}^2 \overline {x_n^2 } +\overline {\xi ^2}

1636: \label{Eqa13}

1637: \end{equation}

1638: Solving (\ref{Eqa12}) and (\ref{Eqa13}) with respect to $\alpha _{Nn}^2 \overline {x_n^2 }$ we have 

1639: \begin{equation}

1640: \frac{\alpha _{Nn}^2 \overline {x_n^2 } }{\overline {x_N^2 } }=\frac{\left[ 

1641: {M^{-1}(MI_n )} \right]^2}{1+\left[ {M^{-1}(MI_n )} \right]^2}\equiv F(MI_n 

1642: )

1643: \label{Eqa14}

1644: \end{equation}

1645: Function $M^{-1}$ here is inverse to $M$ defined in (\ref{Eqa11}). Function $F(MI)$ 

1646: numerically calculated from (\ref{Eqa11}) and (\ref{Eqa14}) is shown in Figure 5. Lastly, 

1647: we recall that variances $\alpha _{Nn}^2 \overline {x_n^2 } $ are related to 

1648: the strength of noise $\overline {\eta _i^2 } $ through (\ref{Eqa2}). We have 

1649: \begin{equation}

1650: \displaystyle

1651: \alpha _{Nn}^2 \overline {x_n^2 } =\sum\limits_{i=1}^n {\alpha _{Ni}^2 

1652: \overline {\eta _i^2 } }

1653: \label{Eqa15}

1654: \end{equation}

1655: Eqs. (\ref{Eqa14}) and (\ref{Eqa15}) are used below to prove a variety of statements about 

1656: function $F(MI)$ used in the main text.

1657: 

1658: \subsection{In the uniform noise example $F(MI)$ is a linear function of position in the chain.} 

1659: 

1660: In this case $C_1 =\ldots =C_{N-1} =1$, 

1661: and, consequently, $\alpha _{N1} =\ldots =\alpha _{NN} =1$. Noise variance 

1662: is the same on every node, i.e. $\overline {\eta _i^2 } \equiv \eta^2 $. 

1663: As follows from (\ref{Eqa15}) $\overline {x_n^2 } =\eta ^2n$, which results in 

1664: \begin{equation}

1665: F(MI_n )=n/N

1666: \label{Eqa16}

1667: \end{equation}

1668: It follows that contributions to DM defined by (\ref{eq9}) are the same for all 

1669: units.

1670: 

1671: \subsection{In the `loud' neuron example the contributions of units upstream 

1672: from the strong link are larger by a factor of $K^2$ than 

1673: contribution from the downstream units.} 

1674: 

1675: 

1676: In this case $\alpha _{1...k} =K$, 

1677: while $\alpha _{k+1...N} =1$, assuming that the link from unit $k$ to $k+1$ 

1678: is strengthened. In the example in the text $k=5$ [cf. (\ref{eq10})]. Eq. (\ref{Eqa15}) 

1679: leads us to the values for variances of responses

1680: \begin{equation}

1681: \displaystyle

1682: \alpha _{Nn}^2 \overline {x_n^2 } =\left\{ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}\displaystyle

1683:  {\displaystyle \eta ^2K^2n,} \hfill & {n\le k} \hfill \\

1684:  {\eta ^2K^2k+\eta ^2\left(\displaystyle {n-k} \right),} \hfill & {n>k} \hfill \\

1685: \end{array} }} \right.

1686: \label{Eqa17}

1687: \end{equation}

1688: Applying (\ref{Eqa14}) we obtain the expression for $F(MI)$

1689: \begin{equation}

1690: F(MI_n )=\left\{ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}\displaystyle

1691:  {\displaystyle \frac{K^2n}{N-k+K^2k},} \hfill & {n\le k} \hfill \\

1692:  {\displaystyle \frac{n-k+K^2k}{N-k+K^2k},} \hfill & {n>k} \hfill \\

1693: \end{array} }} \right.,

1694: \label{Eqa18}

1695: \end{equation}

1696: which is a piece-wise linear function of $n$. Eq.~(\ref{eq9}) determines 

1697: contributions to DM as

1698: \begin{equation}

1699: DM_n =\left\{ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}

1700:  {\displaystyle \frac{K^2}{N-k+K^2k},} \hfill & {n\le k} \hfill \\

1701:  {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N-k+K^2k},} \hfill & {n>k} \hfill \\

1702: \end{array} }} \right.

1703: \label{Eqa19}

1704: \end{equation}

1705: This confirms that the upstream units ($n\le k)$ are $K^2$ times more potent 

1706: than the downstream ones ($n>k)$. 

1707: 

1708: \subsection{Two definitions of contribution to DM using derivative of 

1709: $F(MI)$ (\ref{eq9}) and the impact of noise (\ref{eq14}) are equivalent. }

1710: 

1711: Let 

1712: us start by determining decision makers from definition (\ref{eq14}). According to 

1713: (\ref{Eqa3})

1714: \begin{equation}

1715: \overline {x_N^2 } =\sum\limits_{i=1}^N {\alpha _{Ni}^2 \overline {\eta _i^2 

1716: } } .

1717: \label{Eqa20}

1718: \end{equation}

1719: Definition (\ref{eq14}) gives

1720: \begin{equation}

1721: DM_i \propto \overline {\eta _i^2 } \frac{\partial \overline {x_N^2 } 

1722: }{\partial \overline {\eta _i^2 } }=\alpha _{Ni}^2 \overline {\eta _i^2 } .

1723: \label{Eqa21}

1724: \end{equation}

1725: After normalization we obtain

1726: \begin{equation}

1727: DM_i =\frac{\alpha _{Ni}^2 \overline {\eta _i^2 } }{\overline {x_N^2 } }.

1728: \label{Eqa22}

1729: \end{equation}

1730: Let us derive the same result from (\ref{eq9}). As follows from (\ref{Eqa14}) 

1731: \begin{equation}

1732: \begin{array}{l}

1733: \displaystyle F(MI_n )-F(MI_{n-1} )=\frac{1}{\overline {x_N^2 } }\left( {\alpha _{Nn}^2 

1734: \overline {x_n^2 } -\alpha _{N\mbox{ }n-1}^2 \overline {x_{n-1}^2 } } 

1735: \right) \\ 

1736:  \displaystyle =\frac{\alpha _{Nn}^2 }{\overline {x_N^2 } }\left( {\overline {x_n^2 } 

1737: -C_{n-1}^2 \overline {x_{n-1}^2 } } \right)=\frac{\alpha _{Nn}^2 \overline 

1738: {\eta _n^2 } }{\overline {x_N^2 } } \\ 

1739:  \end{array}

1740: \label{Eqa23}

1741: \end{equation}

1742: This proves the equivalence of (\ref{eq9}) and (\ref{eq14}), since the result is 

1743: identical to (\ref{Eqa22}).

1744: 

1745: \section{Connection between discrete- and continuous-time models.}

1746: \label{appendixb}

1747: 

1748: In this section we show that the discrete-time model can be derived from 

1749: continuous-time model. Starting from equation (\ref{eq37}) for the unit responses 

1750: in the continuous case we obtain the relation for solutions at two different 

1751: time points separated by the time-interval $\tau$, analogous to (\ref{eq19}) in 

1752: the discrete-time description. Then we show that in the limiting case $\tau \to 0$ two descriptions are equivalent.

1753: 

1754: From (\ref{eq37}) we obtain

1755: \begin{equation}

1756: \vec {x}(t+\tau )=e^{-\hat {A}\tau }\vec {x}(t)+\int\limits_t^{t+\tau } 

1757: {e^{-\hat {A}(t+\tau -{t}')}\vec {\eta }({t}')d{t}'}.

1758: \label{Eqb1}

1759: \end{equation}

1760: This equation can be rewritten as $\vec {x}(t+\tau )=\hat {C}\vec {x}(t)+{\vec {\eta }}'(t)$, 

1761: where 

1762: \begin{equation}

1763: \hat {C}=e^{-\hat {A}\tau }\approx \hat {I}-\hat {A}\tau .

1764: \label{Eqb2}

1765: \end{equation}

1766: Thus it has the same form as (\ref{eq19}). Using (\ref{eq32}) we obtain that the new noise cross-correlation matrix

1767: \begin{equation}

1768: {\hat {{\cal N}}}'=\int\limits_0^\tau {e^{-\hat {A}{t}'}\hat {{\cal 

1769: N}}e^{-\hat {A}^T{t}'}d{t}'} .

1770: \label{Eqb3}

1771: \end{equation}

1772: The solution of the continuous-time problem satisfies the equations of the 

1773: discrete-time model for an arbitrarily large time interval $\tau $, but 

1774: the new noise cross-correlation matrix ${\hat {{\cal N}}}'$ is non-diagonal 

1775: in this case. In the limiting case $\tau \to 0$ it becomes 

1776: diagonal. Indeed (\ref{Eqb3}) implies that in this limit

1777: \begin{equation}

1778: {\hat {{\cal N}}}'=\hat {{\cal N}}\tau \quad ,

1779: \label{Eqb4}

1780: \end{equation}

1781: which is diagonal by the definition of the continuous-time model. 

1782: Here we kept only terms linear in $\tau $. Thus, in this limit the matrix ${\hat {{\cal N}}}'$ is diagonal as needed in our 

1783: formulation of discrete-time model. One can also derive (\ref{eq41}) from (\ref{eq28}) 

1784: using (\ref{Eqb2}) and (\ref{Eqb4}) and taking the limit $\tau \to 0$.

1785: 

1786: 

1787: 

1788: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1789: \small

1790: 

1791: 

1792: \bibitem{1}

1793: Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1972) Handbook of mathematical functions with 

1794: formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, 10th printing, 1972, with 

1795: corrections. Edition. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.

1796: 

1797: \bibitem{2}

1798: Eaton RC, Emberley DS (1991) How stimulus direction determines the 

1799: trajectory of the Mauthner-initiated escape response in a teleost fish. J 

1800: Exp Biol 161:469-487.

1801: 

1802: \bibitem{3}

1803: Efetov K (1997) Supersymmetry in disorder and chaos. Cambridge [England] ; 

1804: New York: Cambridge University Press.

1805: 

1806: \bibitem{4}

1807: Glimcher PW (2003) The neurobiology of visual-saccadic decision making. Annu 

1808: Rev Neurosci 26:133-179.

1809: 

1810: \bibitem{5}

1811: Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2002) Banburismus and the brain: decoding the 

1812: relationship between sensory stimuli, decisions, and reward. Neuron 

1813: 36:299-308.

1814: 

1815: \bibitem{6}

1816: Horwitz GD, Newsome WT (1998) Neurophysiology: sensing and categorizing. 

1817: Curr Biol 8:R376-378.

1818: 

1819: \bibitem{7}

1820: Mazurek ME, Roitman JD, Ditterich J, Shadlen MN (2003) A role for neural 

1821: integrators in perceptual decision making. Cereb Cortex 13:1257-1269.

1822: 

1823: \bibitem{8}

1824: Poirazi P, Mel BW (2001) Impact of active dendrites and structural 

1825: plasticity on the memory capacity of neural tissue. Neuron 29:779-796.

1826: 

1827: \bibitem{9}

1828: Robinson DA (1989) Integrating with neurons. Annu Rev Neurosci 12:33-45.

1829: 

1830: \bibitem{10}

1831: Roitman JD, Shadlen MN (2002) Response of neurons in the lateral 

1832: intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time 

1833: task. J Neurosci 22:9475-9489.

1834: 

1835: \bibitem{11}

1836: Romo R, Salinas E (2003) Flutter discrimination: neural codes, perception, 

1837: memory and decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:203-218.

1838: 

1839: \bibitem{12}

1840: Salinas E, Romo R (1998) Conversion of sensory signals into motor commands 

1841: in primary motor cortex. J Neurosci 18:499-511.

1842: 

1843: \bibitem{13}

1844: Salzman CD, Murasugi CM, Britten KH, Newsome WT (1992) Microstimulation in 

1845: visual area MT: effects on direction discrimination performance. J Neurosci 

1846: 12:2331-2355.

1847: 

1848: \bibitem{14}

1849: Shadlen MN, Newsome WT (2001) Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the 

1850: parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. J Neurophysiol 

1851: 86:1916-1936.

1852: 

1853: \end{thebibliography}

1854: \end{document}

1855: