dennis/role_of_noise
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add figure text

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Dennis Huben 2025-01-13 17:51:31 +01:00
parent 1f7ad45f84
commit a393c981cc
1 changed files with 49 additions and 30 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

79
main.tex
View File

@ -702,19 +702,6 @@ Bottom: Using the difference in coding fraction instead of the quotient makes th
\label{increases_broad}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_sigma_broad_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_sigma_broad_quot.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_firing_rate_broad_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_firing_rate_broad_quot.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_cv_broad_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_cv_broad_quot.pdf} \notedh{leave CV out? Consistent with narrow band?}
\caption{\todo{write}}
\label{overview_fits_broad}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Narrowband}
@ -728,6 +715,23 @@ Qualitatively we see very similar results when instead of the broadband signal w
\label{overview_experiment_results_narrow}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/narrow_0_50/scatter_and_fits_sigma_coding_fractions_firing_rate.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/narrow_0_50/scatter_and_fits_firing_rate_coding_fractions_sigma.pdf}
\caption{Coding fraction for a single cell as a function of $\sigma$ (left) and firing rate (right). The signal used was a 0-50Hz narrowband signal.
Similar to what we have seen for the broadband signal (figure \ref{coding_fraction_n_1}), cells for which $\sigma$ is large, i.e. noisier cells, have a lower single cell coding fraction than cells with a smaller $\sigma$. The correlation appears to be a bit weaker though. The reverse is true for single-cell coding fraction as a function of firing rate: here, the correlation is stronger that it was for the broadband signal; it is still weaker than the correlation for the noise. Notably, there are a few cells with rather low firing rates for which the single-cell coding fraction is very close to 0. This was not the case for any of the other input signals we used, neither broadband nor higher frequency narrowband.}
\label{coding_fraction_n_1_narrow_0_50}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/narrow_0_50/scatter_and_fits_sigma_firing_rate_contrast}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/narrow_250_300/scatter_and_fits_sigma_firing_rate_contrast}
\caption{}
\label{sigma_vs_firing_rate_for_narrow}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{increases_narrow} and \ref{increases_narrow_high} both show that the results with regards to the increase of coding fraction for different population sizes seen for the broadband signal also appear when we use narrowband signals. For the high frequency signal (250Hz to 300Hz, figure \ref{increases_narrow_high} the correlation between the coding fraction increase and the firing rate is higher than the correlation between the coding fraction increase and $\sigma$. As seen before, taking the difference between the coding fraction of a population size of 64 ($c_{64}$) and at a population of 1 ($c_1$) might not work out. With the narrowband signal even more than with the broadband signal some of the cells only begin to take off in coding fraction near that population size of 64 \ref{overview_experiment_results_narrow}. So the absolute difference is quite small at this point. If we had population sizes larger than 64, the regression would make more sense; the less noisy cells will have similar values of $c_{64}$ and e.g. $c_{512}$, but for the noisier cells there can be a huge difference.
@ -748,23 +752,6 @@ Figures \ref{increases_narrow} and \ref{increases_narrow_high} both show that th
\end{figure}
The results (figure \ref{overview_fits}) show \todo{write}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_sigma_narrow_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_sigma_narrow_quot.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_firing_rate_narrow_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_firing_rate_narrow_quot.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_cv_narrow_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_cv_narrow_quot.pdf} \notedh{leave them out? No idea why the fits aren't working for the smaller intervals}
\caption{\todo{write}
For the frequency range of 150-200Hz only four data points are present (compare figure \ref{experiments_narrow_150_200}); for 50-100Hz only six trials were available (compare figure \ref{experiments_narrow_50_100}).}
\label{overview_fits_narrow}
\end{figure}
%figures created with result_fits.py
@ -781,6 +768,23 @@ Bottom: Using the difference in coding fraction instead of the quotient makes th
\label{increases_narrow_high}
\end{figure}
The results (figure \ref{overview_fits}) show \todo{write}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_sigma_narrow_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_sigma_narrow_quot.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_firing_rate_narrow_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_firing_rate_narrow_quot.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_cv_narrow_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_cv_narrow_quot.pdf} \notedh{leave them out? No idea why the fits aren't working for the smaller intervals}
\caption{\todo{write}
For the frequency range of 150-200Hz only four data points are present (compare figure \ref{experiments_narrow_150_200}); for 50-100Hz only six trials were available (compare figure \ref{experiments_narrow_50_100}). For 350-400 only 5 points.}
\label{overview_fits_narrow}
\end{figure}
\notedh{link to the appropriate chapter from theory results}
In addition to the ``pure'' narrowband signals, I also analysed the coding fraction change for a smaller part of the spectrum in the experiments using the broadband signal. Figure \ref{increases_narow_in_broad} shows part of the results and again we see the strong correlation between $\sigma$ and the gain and a lesser correlation between the firing rate and the gain. In this case we see the same correlation also for the coding fraction difference.
Similar results can be observed for the other frequency bands. \notedh{Images to the appendix? The sigma/gain of all in one plot?}
@ -798,6 +802,19 @@ Bottom: Using the difference in coding fraction instead of the quotient makes th
\label{increases_narow_in_broad}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_sigma_broad_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_sigma_broad_quot.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_firing_rate_broad_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_firing_rate_broad_quot.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_cv_broad_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{img/sigma/fit_results_overviews/fit_results_cv_broad_quot.pdf} \notedh{leave CV out? Consistent with narrow band?}
\caption{\todo{write}}
\label{overview_fits_broad}
\end{figure}
%compare_params_300.py auf oilbird
\begin{figure}
@ -876,6 +893,8 @@ Bottom: Using the difference in coding fraction instead of the quotient makes th
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{img/sigma/narrow_250_300/averaged_4parts.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{img/sigma/narrow_250_300/scatter_and_fits_sigma_quot_firing_rate.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{img/sigma/narrow_250_300/scatter_and_fits_sigma_diff_firing_rate.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{img/sigma/narrow_250_300/scatter_and_fits_firing_rate_quot_sigma.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{img/sigma/narrow_250_300/scatter_and_fits_firing_rate_diff_sigma.pdf}
\label{sigma_narrow_250_300}
\caption{Experimental data for a signal with a lower cutoff frequency of 250Hz and an upper cutoff of 300Hz.
A: Coding fraction as a function of population size. Cells are grouped in quartiles according to $\sigma$.