Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: nervous system is continuously confronted by megabytes of information , representing light , sound , smell , etc . this information is compiled by the brain into a set of decisions , representing behaviors of living organisms . the mechanisms involved in this reduction have been under investigation for many years ( glimcher , 2003 ; romo and salinas , 2003 ) . in this study we address a question complimentary to the issue of decision making ( dm ) mechanisms . we define neuronal units involved in making perceptual decisions . for this purpose we determine dm activity in surrogate networks , defined mathematically , in which a complete control is present over stimuli , mechanisms , and responses . such decision making analysis ( dma ) has practical significance , since once units involved in making particular decision are located , further efforts could be concentrated on uncovering the underlying mechanisms .    in this study dm task is defined as evaluation of a function in the multidimensional stimulus space ( figure 1a ) . this function has a discrete set of values , representing the repertoire of responses available to the organism . the decisions may , of course , be stochastic , to reflect the uncertainty , pertinent to behavior . this definition is suitable for experiments where subjects perform poly - alternative forced - choice tasks , such as saccadic response to the direction of stimulus motion ( shadlen and newsome , 2001 ) . let us consider motion - discrimination task in more detail . figure 1b lists some visual areas , which are involved in this task . the areas are arranged along a rough sensory - motor axis , so that the areas on the left are more `` sensory '' , while those on the right are more `` motor '' . this implies that the responses in these areas are more correlated with stimulus or response respectively . where on this sensory - motor axis one should position the dm elements ? one could argue that the elements most correlated with the decision itself are the decision makers , following the analogy with the definition of sensory and motor elements . it is , however , difficult , if not impossible , to distinguish such definition from the definition of purely motor units ( shadlen and newsome , 2001 ) . the latter relay the results of decision making process , without involvement in the formation of the decision . an alternative approach is therefore needed to define the dm units . the dm components may be surmised to be located on the interface between sensory and motor areas . more precisely , the _ first _ element in the sensory - motor chain , which carries significant correlation with the response , may be identified as the decision maker . in this study we develop this idea into rigorous mathematical formulation and find a special correlation function , which determines contributions of units to dm . this formalism allows us to answer two questions pertaining to the identities of dm units . first , we consider the case when not one but _ several _ elements are involved in the same decision simultaneously . our approach allows us to evaluate relative importance of various units in such a distributed dm . second , we consider the systems with loops in connectivity . for such systems the concept of ` the first element ' becomes more arbitrary and one has to proceed more carefully in defining contributions to dm . we succeed in doing so for our surrogate networks and define dm units for recurrent networks in a way , which is consistent with the linear sensory - motor chains , thus satisfying the requirement of the correspondence principle . this paper is organized as follows . we first analyze simple linear chain models , and networks , such as trees , which have similar properties . we then use this analysis to define decision makers in networks of arbitrary connectivity . finally , we extend our study to the cases , when electric stimulation can be applied to units , and show that dm components can be identified in a way consistent with our preceeding analyses . the goal of this section is to formulate quantitative principles by which dm network elements can be identified . 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 . these cases allow us to emphasize the properties of dm task we are attempting to describe . we proceed therefore to the analysis of the simplest network capable of making decisions .      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 . we first define the model ; then show that it can make simple decisions ; and , finally , define the positions of decision makers in the network . consider a linear chain of units , whose response is characterized by a set of real numbers @xmath0 , where @xmath1 is the position of the element in the chain ( figure 2 ) . response of each element does not depend on time . this model is therefore static . this assumption is introduced here to simplify the analysis and can be relaxed as described below ( section  [ trees ] ) . each unit performs a simple linear transformation between the unit s input and the output . thus , for element number @xmath2 @xmath3 here @xmath4 is noise associated with the element . in this work we assume that noise has zero mean , is individual to each unit , and , therefore , is uncorrelated between units , i.e. @xmath5 we further assume that noise has a gaussian distribution . the chain of linear elements is thus completely specified by a set of noise variances @xmath6 . the model described by ( [ eq1 ] ) and ( [ eq2 ] ) yields the following solution for the response of the last element in the chain @xmath7 thus , the response of the last element is just a sum of the input into network @xmath8 and noise contributions from all units , independently on the order of unit in the chain . the last element in the chain has non - linear response properties . its response is defined by @xmath9 where @xmath10 is the heaviside  step  function , which is equal to one / zero if the argument is positive / negative . it follows then that our ` nematode ' network is capable of making decisions based on the values of input variable @xmath8 . this is if we interpret variable @xmath11 , which is equal either 0 or 1 , as the result of dm process , as defined in figure 1a . the decisions are made stochastically and are dependent upon the instantiations of random variables @xmath4 , which vary from trial to trial . our model is completely defined by the set of noise variances , pertinent to each unit @xmath12 . although decisions made by this chain are quite simple , the identities of decision makers are not so easy to find . the distribution of impact to dm along the chain should depend upon the distribution of noise variables @xmath6 . our next goal is to develop a sensible definition of contributions to dm based on the vector of variances @xmath6 . before doing so we describe general input - output properties of the chain .    since decision made by the network varies from trial to trial , one can define averaged over trials response of the system @xmath13 . as shown in figure 2b it has a sigmoid shape , smeared by the total amount of noise in the system . one can , therefore , consider two cases , depending on whether the signal - to - noise ratio for the chain is large or small . these two regimes are shown in figure 3a and b respectively .    to analyze responses of units in these two cases we define their correlation with the decision . this correlation is defined for each element in the chain ( figure 3 , right ) . as a measure of correlation we choose mutual information ( mi ) between response of the @xmath14th unit , @xmath15 , and the decision , @xmath11 . mi has an advantage of being unitless ( it is measured in bits ) and having clear intuitive properties , as described below . we will also show below in this section that mi has limitations as a measure of dm . mi describes the information transmission from the @xmath14th unit to the output of the system . since the output can only have values 0 or 1 , mi can not exceed the value of one bit . we now consider two cases , depending on the network s signal - to - noise ratio . if network input @xmath16 is large , as in figure 3a , response of the system is well correlated with the input . hence , activities of all units are well correlated with both input and output , and @xmath17 for all of the units . in the opposite limit , when the signal - to - noise ratio is small , @xmath16 is smaller than noise , and the system s response is weakly correlated with the input ( figure 3b ) . in this case mi as a function of unit s position displays a structure , shown in figure 3b ( right ) . this structure , as shown below , has a key to the definition of dm components and is qualitatively discussed here . the units , which are close to the exit from the network , show strong correlation with the decision , similarly to the high signal - to - noise ratio case . their mi is therefore close to 1 bit . on the other hand , more ` sensory ' units , in the beginning of the chain are strongly correlated with the input . since input - output correlation is weak in low signal - to - noise ratio case , the ` sensory ' units display virtually _ no _ relation to the output and @xmath18 for such units ( figure 3b , right ) . thus , mi , as a function of @xmath2 displays a transition from 0 to 1 in the low signal - to - noise ratio case .    how could one deduce identities of decision makers from these dependencies ( figure 3a and b ) ? one could suggest that the elements perfectly correlated with the output of the system , such as exit elements from the chain , are the ones that make the decision . however , such elements may be just the relay or ` motor ' units , in which case their contribution to dm is small . indeed , when we type , our decisions are perfectly correlated with activities of finger muscles ; but one could hardly blame our fingers for the content of the typing . thus , despite their high correlation with the output , exit elements could not be called decision makers . input elements , having no correlation with the decision , are responsible for dm in even lesser degree . we thus need to analyze the dependence of mi on position in more detail and suggest another scheme for defining dm units . our discarding of motor units as decision makers can be further extended onto the entire high signal - to - noise ratio case ( figure 3a ) . we suggest that the deterministic regime is not descriptive from the point of view of dm analysis . first , in this regime all units become indistinguishable from motor . the latter are not decision makers , as suggested above . second , the dependence shown in figure 3a ( right ) does not reveal the contributions of individual units to the decision . since all units have the same correlation , it is hard , if not impossible , to differentiate them and assign different contributions . third , the responses of units in this case are deterministically related to the input . hence , units act as relays , passively transmitting information along the chain . it can be argued that the external environment , providing the input variable @xmath8 , acts as the decision maker . we conclude that to find decision making activity one has to concentrate on the low signal - to - noise ratio case . we show below that the identities of decision making units can be deduced from the shape of transition in figure 3b ( right ) . to this end we analyze a set of examples of networks with various distributions of noise @xmath19 . we start from the simplest example of a single noisy unit . consider a chain in which noise is absent from all units but one , whose order number in the chain is @xmath20 ( figure 4 ) . since , according to our previous discussion , we need to consider the low signal - to - noise ratio case , we will assume that @xmath21 i.e. network receives no input . making the decision in this case is still possible , based on the values of noise inside the network . since noise is only present in one neuron , from ( [ eq3 ] ) we conclude that @xmath22 the decision made by the network is @xmath23 thus , decision is causally linked to the processes controlling unit number @xmath20 , which leads us to conclusion that this neuron is the decision maker . paradoxically , the noisiest unit in this simple formulation makes the largest impact . all noiseless elements , even nonlinear , are deterministic , and work as simple relays which transmit information from the previous node to the next one . the output of the circuit is linked to the processes controlling noise in neuron number @xmath20 , rather that in any other neuron in the network . one would be tempted to conclude that the non - linear element is actually the decision maker in this case . we deduce that the non - linear element does not have a causal effect on output from the circuit ; therefore its role is just to relay response from neuron @xmath20 to the output . in this respect the non - linear element is not different from other noiseless elements .    to link this example to our previous discussion ( figure 3b ) we plot mi as a function of position in the chain in figure 4 ( top ) . as we discussed , mi is high for exit ( ` motor ' ) units and low for input ( ` sensory ' ) elements . figure 4 also shows the derivative of mi with respect to position in the chain . it is clear that this derivative represents the decision making element . thus , we conclude that not correlation with the decision but the _ rate of change _ of the latter along the network is the indicator of dm . our next example shows that the conclusion about derivative of mi is basically correct , but has to be slightly amended to be numerically precise . consider the chain in which all elements are noisy and the variance of noise is the same for each element . in this case @xmath24 i.e. all units contribute to decision _ equally_. this is because eq . ( [ eq8 ] ) does not distinguish the order in which contributions from the units are added , and all contributions are of equal strength on average . can this conclusion be confirmed by the derivative of mi ? figure 5a shows mi as a function of position in the chain for this case . this dependence is obtained in appendix a. it increases smoothly from 0 to 1 resulting in a non - zero derivative at all units . this is consistent with ( [ eq8 ] ) and the notion that all units participate in the decision . however , ( [ eq8 ] ) suggests that all units participate in decision _ equally_. the derivative of mi turns out to be slightly non - uniform , as seen in figure 5a . this can be corrected if not mi itself but a non - linear function of mi , denoted @xmath25 , is considered . this non - linear function is calculated in appendix a and is shown in figure 5b . the new correlator @xmath25 has the same basic properties as the mi . it rises from 0 to 1 monotonously when passing through the array ( figure 5c ) . but , in addition , its derivative turns out to be _ uniform _ , as shown in figure 5c ( bottom ) . this is consistent with equal participation of all units in dm in the uniformly distributed noise case and eq . ( [ eq8 ] ) . thus , we conclude that for this case the contributions to dm are given by the rate of increase of @xmath25 when moving through the array @xmath26 here @xmath2 is the index along the chain . ( [ eq9 ] ) is the main result of this paper . it represents our definition of contributions to dm for networks of simple connectivity , such as chains . three points should be made about the definition ( [ eq9 ] ) . first , it reproduces the result obtained in the previous example of noisy neuron . indeed , the mutual information rises from 0 to 1 on the noisy neuron in figure 4 . but @xmath25 coincides with mi at these values , as follows from its plot in figure 5b . thus , the derivative of @xmath25 is also given by a single spike at the position of noisy neuron , as in figure 4 ( bottom ) . second , eq . ( [ eq9 ] ) implies that , from point of view of dm , not mutual information , but another correlator , given by @xmath25 , is more relevant . function @xmath27 deviates from linear function only slightly ( figure 5b ) , and for practical purposes the distinction between the mi and @xmath25 could be ignored . however , we retain it throughout the manuscript to ensure mathematical rigor . third , when deducing ( [ eq9 ] ) we did not postulate that contributions to dm are proportional to the variance of noise . instead , we suggested that eq . ( [ eq8 ] ) implies that all units contribute equally , independently on the order in the chain . this simple qualitative statement is powerful enough to constrain our quantitative reasoning and lead to a measure of dm in form of function @xmath25 and definition ( [ eq9 ] ) . we do not know yet if the derivative of @xmath25 is proportional to the variance of noise , square root of this variance , or any other characteristic of noise in each element . all of these parameters give the same results in the uniform noise case . we need to have a difference between units to measure relative strength of their contributions . this is achieved by the next example .    , is close to linear , shown by the dotted line . * c * , the new correlator @xmath25 ( top panel ) has a uniform derivative ( bottom panel ) . thus , derivative of @xmath25 is a sensible measure of decision making in the case of uniform noise . , width=288 ]    , is close to linear , shown by the dotted line . * c * , the new correlator @xmath25 ( top panel ) has a uniform derivative ( bottom panel ) . thus , derivative of @xmath25 is a sensible measure of decision making in the case of uniform noise . , width=288 ]      in this example the variances of noise on all neurons are the same , similarly to the previous case . however , here we amend the network definition given by ( [ eq1 ] ) . we do so for only one neuron . we assume that the link between units 5 and 6 is characterized by a very large strength @xmath28 . thus , for neuron number 6 ( figure 6 ) instead of ( [ eq1 ] ) we have @xmath29 therefore this example is the same as the previous , except that the single network connection is changed . what are the dm units in this case ? the network s output is given by @xmath30 thus , units 1 through 5 contribute equally to decision . in addition , their contributions are multiplied by a large factor @xmath31 . units 6 through 11 also contribute equally , but their contribution is much smaller than that of the former group . we conclude that units 1 through 5 are much stronger decision makers than units 6 through 11 . this conclusion is supported by the derivative of @xmath25 , as shown in figure 6 ( bottom ) . thus , changing one link in the chain produces large effect on the distribution of dm . the units downstream from the link contribute less to decisions , while the units upstream contribute a lot . what is the measure of decision making , which could differentiate these two types of units ? calculations in appendix a show that derivative of @xmath25 is proportional to @xmath32 for units 1 through 5 . this is easy to understand qualitatively , since mi increases along the chain even for negative ( @xmath33 links . this is _ not _ possible if contribution from units 1 to 5 are multiplied by @xmath31 for example . thus , an even power of @xmath31 is required , which is shown in appendix a to be @xmath32 . so far we have used definition ( [ eq9 ] ) , which is quite complex , since it involves calculation of a nonlinear function @xmath25 . is it possible to reproduce the results derived above in a simpler way ? it turns out that the role of given unit in dm is proportional to its contribution to the variability of the output @xmath34 . this leads us to an alternative to ( [ eq9 ] ) definition of dm . let us introduce the new definition using the examples , considered above . from ( [ eq11 ] ) in the ` loud ' neuron case we derive @xmath35 we could conjecture that the contributions to dm from different units are weighted proportionally to the corresponding summands in ( [ eq12 ] ) . indeed , if we assume @xmath36 @xmath37 by choosing appropriate values of variance of noise and gain , we can reproduce the results of all three of our previous examples . thus , in the case of noisy neuron the variance of noise is only present in one unit , rendering this unit decision maker , according to ( [ eq13 ] ) . in the case of uniform noise , when @xmath38 and all @xmath39 are the same , ( [ eq13 ] ) gives uniform contributions to dm . in the case of ` loud ' neuron , ( [ eq13 ] ) gives the correct factor @xmath32 describing the advantage of upstream neurons . thus , the contributions to dm are proportional to the variance of noise on given element , multiplied by the square of the gain from this element to the output . we can rewrite ( [ eq13 ] ) in a more compact form to emphasize this latter statement @xmath40 one could verify ( [ eq14 ] ) , by applying it to ( [ eq12 ] ) and obtaining relationships ( [ eq13 ] ) . this justifies ( [ eq14 ] ) in the three examples considered above . ( [ eq14 ] ) also applies to linear chains in general . in appendix a we derive ( [ eq14 ] ) from previous definition ( [ eq9 ] ) for arbitrary distribution of connection strengths and noise . thus , ( [ eq14 ] ) can be considered an alternative definition to ( [ eq9 ] ) . the equivalence between ( [ eq9 ] ) and ( [ eq14 ] ) is demonstrated graphically in figure 7 . why should one consider an alternative definition ? this is because ( [ eq9 ] ) can not be applied to networks of arbitrary connectivity , such as circuits containing loops . definition ( [ eq14 ] ) however applies to all topologies , including the linear chain examples , considered here . the bottom panel displays the derivative of @xmath25 , defined by ( [ eq9 ] ) . the derivative is numerically the same as the variance of noise . both can be used as measures of decision making . , width=288 ]      let us review our findings . first , we arrived to the definition of dm activity using the information - theoretical approach ( [ eq9 ] ) . according to this definition , dm is the rate of change of correlation with decision along the chain . in other words , the _ first _ element or elements , which correlate with the decision , are the decision makers . this approach has its pros and contras . indeed , the viewpoint expressed by ( [ eq9 ] ) has a potential to be transferred to other systems , which contain non - linear elements . ( [ eq9 ] ) has an information - theoretical origin ; hence its applicability may be broader than our simple system . another advantage of ( [ eq9 ] ) is that it relies on the characteristics measurable in single - electrode recording experiments , such as response of single unit and its correlation with behavioral decision . thus , ( [ eq9 ] ) could be used experimentally . the disadvantage of the information - theoretical approach is that it is not clear how to apply it to the systems with loops , as we have mentioned above . since biological networks almost always contain loops this significantly limits the applicability of information - theoretical formula ( [ eq9 ] ) . our second step was to derive an alternative definition ( [ eq14 ] ) . the latter is _ equivalent _ to the former definition ( [ eq9 ] ) for linear - chain ( ` nematode ' ) example , as we have demonstrated on simple examples and have shown more rigorously in appendix a. the alternative definition ( [ eq14 ] ) can be understood on the basis of the following two observations . first , the example of ` noisy ' neuron shows that the variability is the source of decisions . thus ,    under fixed other conditions , an increase in variability and noise in a single unit leads to a larger contribution to dm from this unit . @xmath41    second , the example of ` loud ' neuron shows that not only variability and noise are important but also how much of this variability reaches the motor units . dm is hence a property of network connectivity too . thus , we arrive to the next rule    the stronger is the pathway from given unit to the motor output , the larger is the contribution of this unit to dm . @xmath42 these two rules are combined into the definition ( [ eq14 ] ) . although ( [ eq14 ] ) and ( [ eq16 ] ) assume that the output element is unique , this requirement will be removed below , when we consider arbitrary topology networks . what are the features of ( [ eq14 ] ) ? it could be used for an arbitrary topology network , since it does not contain derivative along the chain , as ( [ eq9 ] ) does . definition ( [ eq14 ] ) can also be used operationally to measure the contribution of each neuron to the decision experimentally . to do that one needs to vary noise at the given unit and measure the variability of the responses . the details are discussed in section  [ stimulation ] below . a special note should be made about normalization in ( [ eq14 ] ) . throughout this work we adopt the convention that dm contributions are evaluated for all units and then normalized proportionally to ( [ eq14 ] ) , so that the total sum of all contributions is equal to one ( or 100% ) . we will assume this to hold below without explicitly mentioning . finally , we give another definition of dm contributions , which could be useful when noise in the system is the same for all units . in this case the only difference between units is due to difference in their position in the network . we therefore call such quantity _ topological _ dm . @xmath43 as seen from e.g. ( [ eq12 ] ) it does not depend on the levels of noise , and can be obtained from ( [ eq14 ] ) by assuming that @xmath44 for all units . it therefore describes how strongly each elements of the circuit affects the output . this quantity is sometimes helpful in describing the network s topology . lastly , we discuss the notion of noise and variability in our approach . is this really noise , which leads networks to decisions ? not necessarily . imagine that we have studied a chain - like network ( figure 8a ) and performed the dm analysis , described above . we found that the network contains two decision makers , which are equally important . a more thorough investigation may suggest that these units are inputs from external network , which in effect is responsible for dm . for example , these hidden pathways may be inputs from other sensory modalities or regulatory inputs of other type . thus , dma may help identify entry points from other , less studied , parts of the network . our studies indicate that information - theoretical analysis [ definition ( [ eq9 ] ) ] can be further extended to tree - like topologies ( figure 9 ) . to this end we define column - vector @xmath45 such that @xmath46 . then ( [ eq9 ] ) is equivalent to @xmath47 here @xmath48 is the structure matrix defined as follows . an element @xmath49 of the structure matrix is equal to 1 if there is a connection from unit number @xmath2 to @xmath50 . matrix @xmath51 thus implements evaluating differences between connected elements in ( [ eq9 ] ) . structure matrix is related to connectivity matrix , containing network s weights through @xmath52 . connectivity matrices for some networks are shown in figures 9 and 10 . information - theoretical approach can be even further extended on the cases , when signals propagate along the network in time , therefore resulting in delays between signal and response . in this case by @xmath53 one should understand a sum of correlations over all times preceding the decision . this compensates for the presence of delays . so far there is no understanding if eq . ( [ eq18 ] ) [ or ( [ eq9 ] ) ] can be used for topologies other than trees . definition ( [ eq14 ] ) , however , can be used with networks of arbitrary connectivity . this is the topic of the next section . all previous examples , except the one mentioned at the end of the last session , were static , i.e. variables did not depend on time . the deficiency of this approach is that it is not clear how to treat networks with loops . to apply our analysis to the cases with loops , and , in general , to networks with _ arbitrary _ connectivity ( figure 10 ) , we consider time - dependent models here . this allows us to observe propagation of noise around the loop explicitly and to make accurate conclusions about contributions to dm . we limit ourselves to linear dynamical systems , where the single nonlinear element is the last one , transforming an analog system output to a binary response . as the first step we consider temporal dynamics in the discrete - time approximation , which contains all essential features of our approach . later in the section we extend discrete model to the continuous - time case and show their equivalence .          in this section we consider a system of @xmath54 elements , whose activity at each instant is described by an @xmath54-dimensional column - vector @xmath55 . time has discrete values separated by an interval @xmath56 . therefore this model is called the discrete - time model . the values of activity at two neighboring time - slices are related by the connection matrix @xmath57 @xmath58 here @xmath59 is the vector describing noise added to activity vector on each time - slice . the variable @xmath60 describes sensory input into the system . the rules of temporal evolution of activities described by this equation are general enough to include almost all interesting phenomena and mimic modeling of real systems on digital computers . in appendix b we will prove that this model is equivalent to systems with continuously defined time . noise is specified by the parameter @xmath59 , which has a zero mean and is defined by the correlation matrix @xmath61 we assume here that neighboring in time values on noise are not correlated , implying that we consider a system with white noise . this assumption can be easily relaxed and is used here to simplify the analysis . it becomes rigorously valid when time - interval @xmath56 is longer than the correlation time of noise . further , if noise is specific to each neuron , the same - time correlation matrix @xmath62 is diagonal @xmath63 this takes place i.e. when stochasticity is induced by probabilistic nature of synaptic vesicle release , in which case every two neurons receive uncorrelated fluctuating inputs .    some time after presentation of the stimulus [ @xmath64 the system is forced to make a decision through the following process first , a scalar quantity @xmath65 is evaluated . here time corresponds to the instant , when the choice is to be made . the output metrics vector @xmath66 describes the way in which system s activity affects motor response . in the simplest case , which was considered in the previous section , when a single element number @xmath20 evokes responses , @xmath67 . in a more complex situation , when multiple areas / neurons have direct influence on decision , vector @xmath66 has more than one non - zero element . on the second step , decision is made based on the sign of @xmath68 @xmath69 thus , this model describes a two - alternative forced - choice task . our system is completely defined by the following set of parameters : @xmath70 , @xmath60 , @xmath62 , and @xmath66 . as we have shown in the previous section , the presence of the stimulus is not required to define dm elements [ eq . ( [ eq5 ] ) ] . we therefore set @xmath60 to zero and are left with three parameters @xmath57 , @xmath62 , and @xmath66 . we now are ready to determine dm elements in our simple model .    to find decision makers we will use eq . ( [ eq14 ] ) . in this case it becomes @xmath71 therefore , we need to evaluate the variability on the output from the system @xmath72 . this is accomplished if we notice that @xmath73 and @xmath74 here we introduced the cross - correlation matrix defined as follows @xmath75 we replace here the time variable by the integers , specifying the time - slice number . the averaging in ( [ eq25 ] ) and ( [ eq26 ] ) is assumed over different instantiations of noise ( trials ) .    due to the properties of noise in our model , this correlator does not depend on the absolute values of time ( @xmath20 and @xmath76 , but only on the difference ( @xmath77 . as follows from ( [ eq25 ] ) , of particular interest is the same - time correlator @xmath78 , which determines fluctuations in @xmath68 . we now derive equation for same - time correlator @xmath79 .    using ( [ eq19 ] ) we obtain @xmath80\left [   { \vec { x}^t(n)\hat { c}^t+\vec { \eta } ^t(n ) } \right ] } \\    \end{array}\ ] ] we then notice that the correlator @xmath81 is identically zero , since @xmath82 is a linear combination of values of noise at times @xmath83 [ see eq . ( [ eq19 ] ) ] . we thus deduce from eq . ( [ eq27 ] ) that @xmath84 which leads us , finally , to @xmath85 this equation allows us to determine the same - time correlator @xmath79 from connectivity and noise cross - correlogram , defined in ( [ eq20 ] ) , which is a diagonal matrix . we would like to pause here and describe the properties of this equation . first of all , in the most generic case ( [ eq28 ] ) allows us to determine @xmath86 from @xmath57 and @xmath62 uniquely . indeed , ( [ eq28 ] ) is a system of @xmath87 linear equations for @xmath87 unknowns @xmath79 , arranged in the matrix form . hence , this system , in most cases , can be solved uniquely . on the other hand , with one exception , @xmath79 can not be expressed explicitly in terms of matrices @xmath57 and @xmath88 . thus , one has to either appeal to the representation of @xmath79 in terms of eigenvectors and eigenvalues of @xmath57 , or use computer to arrange elements of matrix @xmath79 in vector form and solve resulting linear system . the contribution to dm from a given element can be determined from eq . ( [ eq25 ] ) @xmath89 the topological dm contributions are @xmath90 using eqs . ( [ eq28 ] ) and ( [ eq29 ] ) one can analyze a variety of network connectivities . some new effect emerging for non - tree systems are described next . we now consider network shown in figure 11a , in which all elements have the same variance of noise and all connections have unitary strength . figure 11a shows two pathways from unit * 2 * to the exit unit , * 6*. the resulting network gain from unit * 2 * to unit * 6 * is thus equal to two . all other units gain at the exit is one . the contribution to dm from unit * 2 * is thus four times larger that from other units . this is because noise at this unit is multiplied by a factor of two , and the variance of noise , by a factor of four . we conclude that there may be some special elements in network , which occupy hub - like positions , gaining large influence due to abundance of their outputs . it should be noted that fan - in hubs are not special from the point of view of dm in any way . let us now examine the network with a loop . figure 11b shows such an example with unitary link strength and uniform noise variance , as in previous case . the presence of loop affects dm drastically : our discrete - time model marks units belonging to the loop as decision makers ) and ( [ eq29 ] ) does not have a valid solution for the loop with all connection equal to unity . one needs to set one of the connection as a parameter , @xmath91 , solve the equations , and consider the limit @xmath92 . this is easy to understand , since noise , generated by each unit on each time - step , can not leave the loop and , therefore , builds up there without limits . therefore the variance of noise in the output of element number three grows proportionally to time @xmath93 ^ 2 } = \overline   { \eta ^2 } t\to \infty $ ] . here averaging is assumed over instantiations of noise ( trials ) . thus , loop becomes the crucial decision maker . this case is somewhat analogous to our previous ` noisy ' neuron example .    what is the possible role of loops in biological networks ? why would one introduce such unreliable components ? loops , similar to shown in figure 11b , have many useful properties . for instance , they can act as parametric memory systems . imagine that responses of all units in the loop have the same values , equal to @xmath94 . this could be accomplished by manipulating the sensory inputs . assume that no more inputs are received from the outside of the system . it follows that , in the absence of noise on each element , this value of response will reverberate around the loop forever . this is because all links have unitary strength . loops can thus memorize a graded value , such as @xmath94 , functioning as parametric memory elements . suppose , in addition , that a non - zero input @xmath95 is applied to element number * 1 * at all times . since this element acts as a summator , its response on the next step is @xmath96 . the signal @xmath95 propagates around the loop , and in four steps it reaches the first element again , at which time its response is @xmath97 . in four more steps @xmath98 . thus , not only noise , but also signal can build up in the system . therefore , a loop can operate as a temporal integrator . the integration is not perfect if one of the links has a non - unitary strength , in which case integrator becomes leaky ( robinson , 1989 ) . temporal integrators play special role in dm , since they act as accumulators of sensory information , which puts them into special position with respect to other areas ( gold and shadlen , 2002 ) . as an example , such is area lip in primate visual cortex , which is involved in dm in direction - discrimination task ( shadlen and newsome , 2001 ; roitman and shadlen , 2002 ; mazurek et al . , 2003 ) . we finally consider a model , in which time runs continuously . this model has potential relevance to real - life networks . the responses of units satisfy the following equation @xmath99 the network connectivity matrix @xmath100 can be related to connection matrix from the discrete - time model in ( [ eq19 ] ) through @xmath101 ( see appendix b ) . noise is defined by its cross - correlation @xmath102 where @xmath103 is a diagonal cross - correlogram of noise . ( [ eq31])-([eq33 ] ) are analogous to the discrete - time case ( [ eq19])-([eq21 ] ) . similarly , we define the output scalar and the decision variable @xmath104 @xmath105 here @xmath106 is time when the system makes the decision . our model is thus defined by eqs . ( [ eq31])-([eq34 ] ) . we will now use definition ( [ eq29 ] ) to find decision makers . as in discrete - time case we need to know the variance of the output variable , @xmath72 , after which ( [ eq29 ] ) leads to @xmath107 important for us is the time - dependent correlator @xmath108 which we now evaluate . solution of ( [ eq31 ] ) is obtained using matrix exponentials @xmath109}\ ] ] if external stimulus is zero or a constant in time , due to ( [ eq5 ] ) , the correlator at @xmath110 @xmath111 we seek @xmath112 in the form @xmath113 where @xmath79 is equal - time cross - correlation . to find equation for @xmath79 we differentiate ( [ eq38 ] ) as follows @xmath114 we arrive thus to the following equation for @xmath79 @xmath115 this equation is the central tool for the continuous - time theory . the contributions to dm from each unit are found by differentiating @xmath116 with respect to noise , as in eq . ( [ eq29 ] ) @xmath117 once the same - time correlation matrix @xmath79 is found from eq . ( [ eq41 ] ) , cross - correlation for arbitrary time is @xmath118 this equation suggests a helpful strategy for determining noise matrix @xmath119 . indeed , ( [ eq41 ] ) and ( [ eq43 ] ) imply that @xmath120 here @xmath121 is infinitesimally small positive number . in other words , noise matrix is equal to discontinuity in time - derivative of cross - correlation at @xmath122 . since noise correlation matrix is diagonal , the non - zero elements are @xmath123 two comments are in order here . first , noise term @xmath59 plays the role of input noise in ( [ eq31 ] ) . it can not be measured directly . equation ( [ eq44 ] ) provides a way to single it out . second , ( [ eq44 ] ) does not apply to the discrete - time model . indeed , in the latter we either have @xmath122 , or @xmath124 , etc . , i.e. the condition @xmath125 with @xmath121 infinitesimally small is hard to enforce . it may happen that @xmath126 is acceptable due to presence of slow components in the circuit , such as temporal integrators . however , in general case ( [ eq44 ] ) can not be applied to the discrete - time case . for instance , it fails dramatically for the case of ` nematode ' chain considered above . equations ( [ eq41 ] ) , ( [ eq42 ] ) , and ( [ eq44 ] ) represent a useful set of tools to find dm components for various connectivities . we present here two possible cases , in which decision makers can be found . they differ in what is known about the system . assume we know the network connectivity @xmath100 , output metrics vector @xmath66 , and autocorrelation for each unit @xmath127 . the steps below allow finding the decision makers .    1 . since noise matrix is diagonal , as per ( [ eq33 ] ) , it can be found from autocorrelation using ( [ eq44 ] ) . 2 .   solving ( [ eq41 ] ) allows determining @xmath128 , the derivative of equal - time crosscorrelation with respect to noise in each element . decision makers are found from ( [ eq42 ] ) . 4 .   normalize contributions to dm so that @xmath129 . scenario 1 does not require simultaneous measurements from all units . it requires the knowledge of the network connectivity however . the next scenario is complimentary in this respect . suppose we have measured the full crosscorrelation matrix @xmath112 by simultaneous recordings from all units . suppose also that we know how the output of the system is evaluated ( vector @xmath130 . these are the steps to determine dm units .    1 .   use ( [ eq44 ] ) to find noise matrix @xmath62 . 2 .   use ( [ eq41 ] ) to find the connection matrix @xmath100 . 3 .   solve ( [ eq41 ] ) to calculate @xmath128 for each element . 4 .   use ( [ eq42 ] ) to find decision makers . normalize contributions to dm so that @xmath129 . both scenarios use extensive knowledge about the system , which renders them useless in experimental conditions . in the next subsection we discuss a way to bypass these limitations . finally , we would like to provide solution to ( [ eq41 ] ) using eigenbasis of matrix @xmath100 . since @xmath100 is not necessarily symmetric , a distinction should be made between right and left eigenvectors . the latter turn out to be useful for our purposes . they are defined by @xmath131 here and below greek indexes denote numbers of eigenvalues , while latin ones label spatial components of vectors and matrices . solution of ( [ eq41 ] ) is    @xmath132    where @xmath133 is the gram matrix of eigenvectors . ( [ eq46_5 ] ) is valid if the eigenvectors form a complete basis in the @xmath54-dimensional space . as follows from ( [ eq46_5 ] ) , eigenvalues of @xmath100 with small real part contribute to dm in a large degree . this justifies the use of principal component analysis when such eigenvalues are present . an example of such principal component is the temporal integrator loop in figure 11b , which has vanishing @xmath134 .    in case if matrix @xmath100 is symmetric , its eigenvalues are real and eigenvectors are orthogonal . this leads to a unit gram matrix . then , eq . ( 3.29 ) becomes more compact @xmath135 similar equations , called kubo formulas , are obtained for various correlators in case of diffusion of particles in random media ( efetov , 1997 ) . the distinguishing feature of ( [ eq48 ] ) is that a product of four eigenvectors enters the expression . thus , propagation of noise in this case can be accompanied by interference between different pathways . an example of destructive interference of this kind is given below , in section [ stimulation ] . ( [ eq48 ] ) can be further simplified . indeed , our model uses diagonal noise matrices , i.e. @xmath136 in ( [ eq48 ] ) . suppose also that the output from the network occurs through one exit element number @xmath2 , which is specified by taking @xmath137 . in this case the use of eq . ( [ eq42 ] ) gives @xmath138 from this equation we conclude that for element @xmath20 to contribute to dm , an eigenvector should exist , which is non - zero on both unit number @xmath20 and exit unit @xmath2 . thus , we conclude that eigenvectors of @xmath100 should be delocalized for broader impact of elements on the decision . this is not surprising in view of the mentioned analogy with the diffusion problem . in case if matrix @xmath100 is not symmetric , the gram matrix may be non - diagonal and ( [ eq49 ] ) can not be used . however , the off - diagonal elements of @xmath139 are usually smaller than diagonal ones , due to uncorrelated sign changes , when ( [ eq47 ] ) is computed with @xmath140 . therefore , ( [ eq49 ] ) may apply approximately . stimulations with electric current add a new degree of freedom to dma , thus leading to more effective ways of finding decision makers . there are two great advantages of the stimulation method . first , it only involves stimulation of a single neuron , therefore no simultaneous multiple - electrode measurements are required . second , the knowledge of network connectivity is not needed to solve the problem . in this section we study our simple networks and find what stimulation strategies are consistent with our earlier definitions , such as eq . ( [ eq14 ] ) . we will use continuous model for concreteness ( section [ continuous ] ) . consider the output variable @xmath68 . it is a linear function of the inputs . it is also a function , which contains noise components , variable from trial to trial . the noise components were acquired from all units in different degree . since noise in each unit is gaussian , the output variable is described by gaussian distribution too @xmath141 in each trial a random value of @xmath68 is obtained , according to distribution ( [ eq50 ] ) . the response of the system is equal to 1 if @xmath68 is positive , and 0 otherwise . the probability to obtain response equal to 1 to given stimulus @xmath95 is given by the error function ( abramowitz and stegun , 1972 ) @xmath142,\ ] ] whereas the probability of zero response is @xmath143.\ ] ] both probabilities depend upon the mean response to stimulus @xmath144 and the standard deviation @xmath145 . therefore the electric stimulation strategies may be based on affecting either the former or the latter . we now consider both of these strategies and show that affecting the mean response may provide misleading results , while changing the variance of response allows estimating contributions to dm consistently with our previous definitions . thus , strategies of stimulation based on standard deviation of the output variable are _ always _ correct in our simple model , independently on the topology of the network . this may seem a trivial consequence of definition ( [ eq14 ] ) , but we will discuss it here for the sake of comparison of two strategies and optimizing them . we start with the strategies of stimulation , which affect the mean response @xmath144 . in our simple model this may be accomplished by injecting a tonic input current into a unit number @xmath2 . mathematically it is accomplished by adding extra stimulus @xmath146 to this unit in eq . ( [ eq31 ] ) . note that in biological systems the stimulating current is alternating with constant amplitude ( salzman et al . , 1992 ) . the mean response is shifted by the stimulation , i.e. @xmath147 where @xmath146 is the magnitude of injected tonic current . this leads to observable changes in the probability @xmath148 @xmath149 here @xmath150 is the change in probability of correct responses after unit number @xmath2 is electrically stimulated . can @xmath150 be a measure of dm ? we notice that @xmath150 can be either positive or negative . this depends on the sign of derivative @xmath151 , which is positive for excitatory pathway from unit @xmath2 to the output and negative for inhibitory pathway . since contribution to dm ought to be positive , we can not assume simply that @xmath152 . the correct expression , which we provide here without derivation is @xmath153 ^ 2.\ ] ] this equation is understood in proportional sense , since @xmath154 should be normalized to ensure that @xmath155 . our investigations show that this expression is accurate for trees and is consistent with both our earlier definitions ( [ eq9 ] ) or ( [ eq14 ] ) . remarkably , it employs quantities , which can be measured in a single - electrode experiment . indeed , the amplitude of noise @xmath6 can be found from autocorrelation of unit s response , using ( [ eq44 ] ) ; and @xmath150 is determined from behavioral changes in response to single - unit stimulation . this equation thus provides an approach potentially useful in practice . does this relationship work for networks of arbitrary connectivity ? figure 12b shows a counterexample , in which a unit is stimulated , which results in _ no _ change in probability of correct response ( we consider trials in which 1 is the correct response throughout this section ) . this is because there are two pathways , leading from this unit to the exit , one positive and one negative . they have equal strength , and , therefore , compensate each other . on the other hand , unit number one _ does _ participate is dm , because if a non - stationary stimulation / stimulus is applied , its effect on the decision is not zero . thus , ( [ eq54 ] ) and tonic stimulation method can not be applied to arbitrary circuits , such as shown in figure 12b , to accurately reveal decision makers .    . , width=288 ]    . , width=288 ]    is there a stimulation method for finding decision making components in arbitrary networks ? the method follows directly from the definition ( [ eq14 ] ) [ or ( [ eq35 ] ) , which is equivalent ] . indeed , when stimulating current is a temporal white noise , the output variable @xmath68 acquires a larger variance ( figure 12c ) . hence , the derivative of output variance , entering ( [ eq35 ] ) can be calculated operationally , by injecting a distracter current . more precisely , if the variance of stimulating current applied to unit @xmath2 is @xmath156 the derivative entering definition ( [ eq35 ] ) is @xmath157 in practice one has no access to the variable @xmath68 , so one can not measure directly the change in variance @xmath158 . instead , one could measure the change in the probability of correct responses under the influence of distracting current . indeed , from ( [ eq50_5 ] ) we obtain @xmath159 combining the last two equations we obtain for the important derivative @xmath160 since the probability of correct responses always decreases under the influence of distracters , the derivative @xmath161 is a negative constant . it is the same for all units . we arrive therefore to the expression for contributions to dm , which follows from ( [ eq35 ] ) @xmath162 here @xmath150 is the decrease in probability of correct responses produced by electric stimulation with variance of the random current equal to @xmath156 . the variance of noise on each unit @xmath163 can be found from autocorrelation using ( [ eq45 ] ) . this procedure works for any topology in our simplified model . it should be noted here that if noise is not entirely white or can not be considered white , ( [ eq45 ] ) can not be used directly and should be replaced by an expression reflecting the spectral characteristics of noise appropriate for the system under investigation . thus , if noise is provided by other parts of the network , its dynamic features may be more complex . therefore , ( [ eq45 ] ) may not apply directly to the ` hidden pathway ' example given in the end of section [ conclusions ] . the procedure , which we just described , permits further optimization . indeed , imagine that the probability of correct responses is exactly @xmath164 . adding distracting stimulation current will not change this probability , i.e. @xmath165 no matter what unit is stimulated . in the opposite limiting case when @xmath166 , the effect of distracter on performance is exponentially small . hence , behavioral response to stimulation has an optimum between @xmath167 and @xmath168 . to find the optimum we observe from ( [ eq56 ] ) that @xmath169 is maximum for the same variation in @xmath170 when @xmath171 is maximum . we therefore plot the latter derivative as a function of @xmath148 in figure 12d . we indeed observe a maximum at the value of probability of correct responses close to @xmath172 to summarize , the following scenario describes algorithm for finding contributions to dm using random stimulation . assume that we _ do not know _ the network connectivity @xmath100 and output metrics vector @xmath66 ; but we know autocorrelation for each unit @xmath127 . the steps below allow finding the decision makers .    1 . prepare stimulus so that the probability of correct responses is close to the value given by ( [ eq59 ] ) . 2 .   stimulate one unit with random current , whose variance is @xmath156 , and measure the decrease in probability of correct responses @xmath169 . 3 .   record autocorrelation and evaluate noise variance @xmath6 for this unit using ( [ eq45 ] ) . 4 .   find contribution to dm for this unit using equation ( [ eq58 ] ) . repeat steps 1 through 4 for all units in the system . normalize contributions to dm so that @xmath129 . in this work we defined decision makers in networks , which behave in a well - defined fashion . as with any definition , there is certain degree of arbitrariness in our study , since this is the first mathematical study of this sort . we had to make choices about the features of decision making we were attempting to describe as well as about the way they were quantified . we demonstrated these features in a set of examples . future studies will show if these features can be used as a basis of a more complete model - independent theory . in this study we postulated that variability and noise , causally linked to decisions , are the chief descriptors of dm . although this point may seem paradoxical we suggest three arguments in its favor . first , variability may reflect additional information needed to make a decision in case of uncertainty . such may be inputs from other modalities , memories , or some other relevant modulatory inputs , supplying e.g. emotional condition of the subject or changing utility values ( figure 8) . second , many behaviors , such as c - start escape responses in fish ( eaton and emberley , 1991 ) and other organisms ( glimcher , 2003 ) , have stochastic character . this makes the task of pursuer more difficult . such unpredictable behaviors are reproduced in our model if the sensory input is weak or in the small signal - to - noise ratio case . third , the goal of dm is to dissipate sensory information , as suggested in the introduction ( figure 1a ) , whereby an analog multi - dimensional stimulus space is reduced to a discrete space of several decisions . we argue that this transformation is facilitated by noise . we have studied the problem of finding decision making units in networks of various connectivities . this path took us from simple linear chains , for which the information - theoretical ( it ) approach was found to be effective , to trees , and , finally to an alternative definition of decision makers , based on propagation of noise in networks . this latter definition is valid in networks of arbitrary topology . all these approaches are equivalent , when they can be compared , but include progressively broader classes of networks . as a practical application for the alternative definition we considered the problem of electric stimulation in the surrogate networks and showed a way of determining dm contributions for arbitrary networks using stimulation with random current . our findings are summarized in figures 13 and 14 . although we studied networks of complex connectivity , the model describing a single network element was quite simple . not all of the units are linear , of course , since dm is a non - linear task ( figure 1a ) . however , our model is essentially based on linear elements . the motivation for this model is that it is easy to analyze . the study of simple models is a necessary step before analysis proceeds any further . once the methodological issues are resolved for simpler models , complex non - linear systems can be studied in the same paradigm . one of important questions resolved here is that a completely linear element can be a decision maker , despite the presence of non - linear units in the network . thus , nonlinearity is not a necessary attribute of dm . this question would be impossible to answer for more realistic system , since in practice all units contain nonlinearities . decision making task , as formulated in figure 1a , is similar to general object discrimination task . representation of motor response in our model is not distinguishable mathematically from the representation of abstract object / decision category ( horwitz and newsome , 1998 ; shadlen and newsome , 2001 ) . the latter does not necessarily lead to a motor command . thus , our analysis may uncover the identities of units responsible for categorization of sensory inputs . in terms of this analysis we emphasize the distinction between units representing the object category and the units in which this representation is actually formed . the former are analogous to motor units in the decision task , while the latter are similar to decision makers . as follows from this study , the analysis is dependent upon the topology of the network involved . for simple linear sensory chains our conclusion is that the _ first _ unit , spatially or temporally , in which the representation of the object is correlated with final outcome of the discrimination process , is responsible for casting the stimulus in one of the abstract classes . in case of recurrent networks a more detailed quantitative analysis is needed to draw conclusions about identities of categorizing units . thus , dma may find a broader use in identifying units representing abstract object s percepts . a special care should be taken in distinguishing the dm task from the sensory discrimination task . it may occur that in the same experiment these tasks are performed by different populations of neurons . an example is given by ( salinas and romo , 1998 ) . they discovered a population of m1 neurons responding differentially to two categories of tactile stimuli . some of these neurons did not respond , when the same behavior was guided by visual cues . this observation is consistent with these neurons performing sensory discrimination of tactile stimuli , while some other population making decisions about the actual motor response . our mathematical analysis is general enough to include both of these functions . thus , if correlations with motor response are studied , it will result in the decision makers ; while when the correlations with percepts are investigated , dma should provide the identities of discriminating elements . we suggest that dma may be relevant to other biological systems . possible applications may include the analysis of molecular networks , such as genetic regulatory or protein binding networks ; finding decision makers in compartmental models of dentritic trees ( poirazi and mel , 2001 ) ; studies of neural networks and structural networks of connectivities between different brain areas ; and analysis of social networks . in this study we define network elements responsible for making decisions . we obtain two equivalent definitions . according to one , decisions are made by elements , in which correlations with the decision are first formed . according to the second definition , decision making activity is measured by the impact of variability in given unit on the response . we give examples of network motifs , especially potent from decision making prospective , such as fan - out hubs and recurrent loops . the latter can function as temporal integrators of sensory inputs . we also study how electric stimulations can reveal decision making components . we conclude that stimulations with time - varying random current produce correct results for all network topologies . here we solve a more general version of linear chain model than considered in the text . the responses of neighboring neurons are related linearly @xmath173 this is a generalization of ( [ eq1 ] ) . the response of the @xmath20th unit is @xmath174 where coefficients @xmath175 , @xmath176 . the external signal @xmath177 is assumed to be zero in this appendix , due to ( [ eq5 ] ) . for the last element in the chain we have @xmath178    comparing ( [ eqa2 ] ) and ( [ eqa3 ] ) we conclude that @xmath179 where @xmath180 is a variable , which describes noise in the networks downstream from unit @xmath20 . it is , thus , uncorrelated with @xmath181 . this is where tree - like topology enters our solution , since in case of loops , @xmath181 and @xmath180 are correlated . our goal now is to calculate mi between the decision variable @xmath182 and @xmath181 . we will use the definition for mi @xmath183 } } \label{eqa6}\ ] ] here @xmath184 , since there is no signal ; @xmath185 and @xmath186 . \label{eqa9}\ ] ] the upper / lower sign is assumed for @xmath187 or @xmath168 in ( [ eqa9 ] ) ; @xmath188 is the standard deviation of gaussian variable @xmath180 defined in ( [ eqa4 ] ) . the expression for mi ( [ eqa6 ] ) results in @xmath189 } \log _ 2 \left [   { 1+\mbox{erf}\left ( { zs_n } \right ) } \right ] \\    s_n = \sigma ( \alpha _ { nn } x_n ) /\sigma \\    \end{array } \label{eqa11}\ ] ] mi is therefore a function of signal - to - noise ratio @xmath190 . inversely , @xmath191 ^ 2 \label{eqa12}\ ] ] on the other hand , ( [ eqa4 ] ) leads to @xmath192 solving ( [ eqa12 ] ) and ( [ eqa13 ] ) with respect to @xmath193 we have @xmath194 ^ 2}{1+\left [ { m^{-1}(mi_n ) } \right]^2}\equiv f(mi_n   ) \label{eqa14}\ ] ] function @xmath195 here is inverse to @xmath196 defined in ( [ eqa11 ] ) . function @xmath25 numerically calculated from ( [ eqa11 ] ) and ( [ eqa14 ] ) is shown in figure 5 . lastly , we recall that variances @xmath197 are related to the strength of noise @xmath6 through ( [ eqa2 ] ) . we have @xmath198 eqs . ( [ eqa14 ] ) and ( [ eqa15 ] ) are used below to prove a variety of statements about function @xmath25 used in the main text .      in this case @xmath199 , and , consequently , @xmath200 . noise variance is the same on every node , i.e. @xmath201 . as follows from ( [ eqa15 ] ) @xmath202 , which results in @xmath203 it follows that contributions to dm defined by ( [ eq9 ] ) are the same for all units .      in this case @xmath204 , while @xmath205 , assuming that the link from unit @xmath206 to @xmath207 is strengthened . in the example in the text @xmath208 [ cf . ( [ eq10 ] ) ] . eq . ( [ eqa15 ] ) leads us to the values for variances of responses @xmath209 applying ( [ eqa14 ] ) we obtain the expression for @xmath25 @xmath210 which is a piece - wise linear function of @xmath20 . ( [ eq9 ] ) determines contributions to dm as @xmath211 this confirms that the upstream units ( @xmath212 are @xmath32 times more potent than the downstream ones ( @xmath213 . let us start by determining decision makers from definition ( [ eq14 ] ) . according to ( [ eqa3 ] ) @xmath214 definition ( [ eq14 ] ) gives @xmath215 after normalization we obtain @xmath216 let us derive the same result from ( [ eq9 ] ) . as follows from ( [ eqa14 ] ) @xmath217 this proves the equivalence of ( [ eq9 ] ) and ( [ eq14 ] ) , since the result is identical to ( [ eqa22 ] ) . in this section we show that the discrete - time model can be derived from continuous - time model . starting from equation ( [ eq37 ] ) for the unit responses in the continuous case we obtain the relation for solutions at two different time points separated by the time - interval @xmath218 , analogous to ( [ eq19 ] ) in the discrete - time description . then we show that in the limiting case @xmath219 two descriptions are equivalent .    from ( [ eq37 ] ) we obtain @xmath220 this equation can be rewritten as @xmath221 , where @xmath222 thus it has the same form as ( [ eq19 ] ) . using ( [ eq32 ] ) we obtain that the new noise cross - correlation matrix @xmath223 the solution of the continuous - time problem satisfies the equations of the discrete - time model for an arbitrarily large time interval @xmath56 , but the new noise cross - correlation matrix @xmath224 is non - diagonal in this case . in the limiting case @xmath219 it becomes diagonal . indeed ( [ eqb3 ] ) implies that in this limit @xmath225 which is diagonal by the definition of the continuous - time model . here we kept only terms linear in @xmath56 . thus , in this limit the matrix @xmath224 is diagonal as needed in our formulation of discrete - time model . one can also derive ( [ eq41 ] ) from ( [ eq28 ] ) using ( [ eqb2 ] ) and ( [ eqb4 ] ) and taking the limit @xmath219 .
Abstract:

Answer: neural circuits often face the problem of classifying stimuli into discrete groups and making decisions based on such classifications . neurons of these circuits can be distinguished according to their correlations with different features of stimulus or response , which allows defining sensory or motor neuronal types . in this study we define the third class of neurons , which is responsible for making decision . we suggest two descriptions for contribution of units to decision making : first , as a spatial derivative of correlations between neural activity and the decision ; second , as an impact of variability in a given neuron on the response . these two definitions are shown to be equivalent , when they can be compared . we also suggest an experimental strategy for determining contributions to decision making , which uses electric stimulation with time- varying random current .