<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The population doctrine in cognitive neuroscience · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.00145/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.00145/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The population doctrine in cognitive neuroscience — mentioned by dopu</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26849335</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2104.00145:26849335</guid><pubDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2021 02:34:19 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Agreed, it&amp;#x27;s really cool :). A lot of this is very new -- it&amp;#x27;s only been in the past decade and a half or so that we&amp;#x27;ve been able to record from large populations of neurons (on the order of hundreds and up, see [0]). But there are a lot of smart people working on figuring out how to make sense of this data, and why we see low-dimensional signals in these population recordings. Here are some good reviews on the subject: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. [0]: https://stevenson.lab.uconn.edu/scaling/ [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3776 [2]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2015.04.003 [3]…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.00145/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>q-bio.NC</category></item></channel></rss>
