2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.10.30.361253
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The unbiased estimation of the fraction of variance explained by a model

Abstract: The correlation coefficient squared, $r^2$, is often used to validate quantitative models on neural data. Yet it is biased by trial-to-trial variability: as trial-to-trial variability increases, measured correlation to a model's predictions decreases; therefore, models that perfectly explain neural tuning can appear to perform poorly. Many solutions to this problem have been proposed, but some prior methods overestimate model fit, the utility of even the best performing methods is limited by the lack of conf… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For this purpose we show the consistency of our main results (Fig. 5 in the paper), by comparing the fraction oracle to another measure, the fraction of variance of the expected response (r 2 ER ) (Pospisil & Bair, 2020). The calculation of the r 2 ER assumes that the variance over image repeats across unique images is constant.…”
Section: Consistency Across Other Performance Measuresmentioning
confidence: 55%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For this purpose we show the consistency of our main results (Fig. 5 in the paper), by comparing the fraction oracle to another measure, the fraction of variance of the expected response (r 2 ER ) (Pospisil & Bair, 2020). The calculation of the r 2 ER assumes that the variance over image repeats across unique images is constant.…”
Section: Consistency Across Other Performance Measuresmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Furthermore, the authors recommend that the signal-to-noise ratio of the data must be above a certain threshold (0.1 for data with 100 images and 10 repeats each, as in our case; see Fig. 14 in Pospisil & Bair (2020)). Our data meets this criterion (see Fig.…”
Section: Consistency Across Other Performance Measuresmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…2). The fraction of variance explained (Pospisil & Bair, 2020) was was 0.35 (.314±0.002 for individual models), which is Fig. 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Secondly, we computed the correlation of the predicted responses with the average responses across repeats and refer to it here as correlation to average. We also computed the fraction of variance explained, using proposed by (Pospisil & Bair, 2020), which provides an unbiased estimate of the variance explained based on the expected neuronal response across image repetitions. However, our model computed different predictions for each repetition of a given test set image, because we also fed the behavioral parameters of each trial into the model.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The form of the most common correction, given by Spearman (1904), multiplies the correlation coefficient by the inverse of its estimated attenuation. Here we follow an approach developed in the neuroscience literature (Pospisil and Bair, 2020;Haefner and Cumming, 2008;Sahani and Linden, 2003) that removes the bias from the sample covariance and variance separately then forms their ratio for the corrected estimate. We call our estimatorr 2 ER as it estimates the fraction of variance explained between the expected responses (r 2 ER ) of the neurons or equivalently their tuning curves.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%