Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Goodness-of-Fit Tests and Nonparametric Adaptive Estimation for Spike Train Analysis.


ABSTRACT: When dealing with classical spike train analysis, the practitioner often performs goodness-of-fit tests to test whether the observed process is a Poisson process, for instance, or if it obeys another type of probabilistic model (Yana et al. in Biophys. J. 46(3):323-330, 1984; Brown et al. in Neural Comput. 14(2):325-346, 2002; Pouzat and Chaffiol in Technical report, http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0909.2785, 2009). In doing so, there is a fundamental plug-in step, where the parameters of the supposed underlying model are estimated. The aim of this article is to show that plug-in has sometimes very undesirable effects. We propose a new method based on subsampling to deal with those plug-in issues in the case of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of uniformity. The method relies on the plug-in of good estimates of the underlying model that have to be consistent with a controlled rate of convergence. Some nonparametric estimates satisfying those constraints in the Poisson or in the Hawkes framework are highlighted. Moreover, they share adaptive properties that are useful from a practical point of view. We show the performance of those methods on simulated data. We also provide a complete analysis with these tools on single unit activity recorded on a monkey during a sensory-motor task.Electronic Supplementary MaterialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2190-8567-4-3) contains supplementary material.

SUBMITTER: Reynaud-Bouret P 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4021619 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Goodness-of-Fit Tests and Nonparametric Adaptive Estimation for Spike Train Analysis.

Reynaud-Bouret Patricia P   Rivoirard Vincent V   Grammont Franck F   Tuleau-Malot Christine C  

Journal of mathematical neuroscience 20140417 1


When dealing with classical spike train analysis, the practitioner often performs goodness-of-fit tests to test whether the observed process is a Poisson process, for instance, or if it obeys another type of probabilistic model (Yana et al. in Biophys. J. 46(3):323-330, 1984; Brown et al. in Neural Comput. 14(2):325-346, 2002; Pouzat and Chaffiol in Technical report, http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0909.2785, 2009). In doing so, there is a fundamental plug-in step, where the parameters of the suppose  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC5771311 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC5426279 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10631392 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8213422 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7453724 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4655309 | biostudies-other
| S-EPMC6335387 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4365073 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3170371 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10584850 | biostudies-literature