In brief, in terms of functional organization in V4, attending to an object (considered a mental state) may be very similar to making it more visible (considered an object state). Of course, finer neuronal selection is expected beyond domain-based selection. However, when viewed from a domain-based perspective within V4, vision and visual attention may not be so different and may differ largely by association with other brain regions. “
“Even the Galunisertib manufacturer simplest of behaviors exhibits unwanted variability. For instance, when monkeys are asked to visually track a black dot moving against a white background, the trajectory of their gaze exhibits a great deal of variability, even when the path of the dot is the

same across trials (Osborne et al., 2005). Two sources of noise are commonly blamed for variability in behavior. One is internal noise; that is, noise within the nervous system (Faisal et al., 2008). This includes noise in sensors, noise in individual neurons, fluctuations in internal variables like attentional and motivational levels, and noise in motoneurons or muscle fibers. The other source of behavioral variability is external noise—noise associated with variability in the outside world. Suppose, for instance,

that instead of tracking a single dot, subjects tracked a flock of birds. Here there is a true underlying direction—determined, for example, by the goal of the birds. However, because each bird deviates slightly from the true direction, there would be trial-to-trial Docetaxel variability in the best estimate of direction. Similar variability arises when, say, estimating the position of an object in low light: mafosfamide because of the small number of photons, again the best estimate of position would vary from trial to trial. Although internal and external noise are the focus of most studies of behavioral variability, we argue here that there is a third cause: deterministic approximations in the complex computations performed by the nervous system. This cause has been largely ignored in neuroscience. However, we argue here that this is likely to be a large, if not dominant, cause of behavioral

variability, particularly in complex problems like object recognition. We also discuss why deterministic approximations in complex computations have a strong influence on neural variability although not so much on single cell variability. Instead, we argue that the impact of suboptimal inference will mostly be on the correlations among neurons and, possibly, the tuning curves. These ideas have important implications for current neural models of behavior, which tend to focus on single-cell variability and internal noise as the main contributors to behavioral variability. Although these arguments apply to any form of computation, we focus here on probabilistic inference. In this case, deterministic approximations correspond to suboptimal inference. For most models in the literature, the sole cause of behavioral variability is internal noise.