  One of the most controversial problems in neural decoding is quantifying the
information loss caused by ignoring noise correlations during optimal brain
computations. For more than a decade, the measure here called $ \Delta I^{DL} $
has been believed exact. However, we have recently shown that it can exceed the
information loss $ \Delta I^{B} $ caused by optimal decoders constructed
ignoring noise correlations. Unfortunately, the different information notions
underlying $ \Delta I^{DL} $ and $ \Delta I^{B} $, and the putative rigorous
information-theoretical derivation of $ \Delta I^{DL} $, both render unclear
whether those findings indicate either flaws in $ \Delta I^{DL} $ or major
departures from traditional relations between information and decoding. Here we
resolve this paradox and prove that, under certain conditions, observing $
\Delta I^{DL} {>}\Delta I^{B} $ implies that $ \Delta I^{DL} $ is flawed.
Motivated by this analysis, we test both measures using neural populations that
transmit independent information. Our results show that $ \Delta I^{DL} $ may
deem noise correlations more important when decoding the populations together
than when decoding them in parallel, whereas the opposite may occur for $
\Delta I^{B} $. We trace these phenomena back, for $ \Delta I^{B} $, to the
choice of tie-breaking rules, and for $ \Delta I^{DL} $, to unforeseen
limitations within its information-theoretical foundations. Our study
contributes with better estimates that potentially improve theoretical and
experimental inferences currently drawn from $ \Delta I^{DL} $ without noticing
that it may constitute an upper bound. On the practical side, our results
promote the design of optimal decoding algorithms and neuroprosthetics without
recording noise correlations, thereby saving experimental and computational
resources.
