Modern neural interfaces allow access to the activity of up to a million neurons within brain circuits. However, bandwidth limits often create a trade-off between greater spatial sampling (more channels or pixels) and the temporal frequency of sampling. Here we demonstrate that it is possible to obtain spatio-temporal super-resolution in neuronal time series by exploiting relationships among neurons, embedded in latent low-dimensional population dynamics. Our novel neural network training strategy, selective backpropagation through time (SBTT), enables learning of deep generative models of latent dynamics from data in which the set of observed variables changes at each time step. The resulting models are able to infer activity for missing samples by combining observations with learned latent dynamics. We test SBTT applied to sequential autoencoders and demonstrate more efficient and higher-fidelity characterization of neural population dynamics in electrophysiological and calcium imaging data. In electrophysiology, SBTT enables accurate inference of neuronal population dynamics with lower interface bandwidths, providing an avenue to significant power savings for implanted neuroelectronic interfaces.

For example, Neuropixels 2.0 probes contain up to 5120 electrodes, 384 of which can be recorded simultaneously [

Modern neural interfaces allow access to the activity of up to a million neurons within brain circuits. However, bandwidth limits often create a trade-off between greater spatial sampling (more channels or pixels) and the temporal frequency of sampling. Here we demonstrate that it is possible to obtain spatio-temporal super-resolution in neuronal time series by exploiting relationships among neurons, embedded in latent low-dimensional population dynamics. Our novel neural network training strategy, selective backpropagation through time (SBTT), enables learning of deep generative models of latent dynamics from data in which the set of observed variables changes at each time step. The resulting models are able to infer activity for missing samples by combining observations with learned latent dynamics.

In overall, I think this paper proposes a well-designed two steps learning pipeline for one-shot unsupervised image translation. But the explanations about selective backpropagation in the rebuttal are still not clear to me. According to Eq.8-14, it seems that G S and E S are not updated in phase II. But according to the Tab. 1 and the rebuttal, they seem to be selectively updated. I strongly suggest the authors to explain the details and motivation in the method part if this paper is accepted.