4.7 Review

The role of Hebbian learning in human perception: a methodological and theoretical review of the human Visual Long-Term Potentiation paradigm

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 115, Issue -, Pages 220-237

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.03.013

Keywords

neural plasticity; long-term potentiation (LTP); visual LTP; sensory LTP; visually evoked potentials; electroencephalography (EEG); Hebbian learning; Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM); The Free Energy Principle

Funding

  1. Health Research Council, New Zealand [18/193]
  2. Rutherford Discovery Fellowship, Royal Society, New Zealand
  3. University of Auckland
  4. Brain Research New Zealand

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Long-term potentiation (LTP) is one of the most widely studied forms of neural plasticity, and is thought to be the principle mechanism underlying long-term memory and learning in the brain. Sensory paradigms utilising electroencephalography (EEG) and sensory stimulation to induce LTP have allowed translation from rodent and primate invasive research to non-invasive human investigations. This review focusses on visual sensory LTP induced using repetitive visual stimulation, resulting in changes in the visually evoked response recorded at the scalp with EEG. Across 15 years of use and replication in humans several major paradigm variants for eliciting visual LTP have emerged. The application of different paradigms, and the broad implementation of visual LTP across different populations combines to provide a rich and sensitive account of Hebbian LTP, and potentially non-Hebbian plasticity mechanisms. This review will conclude with a discussion of how these findings have advanced existing theories of perceptual learning by positioning Hebbian learning both alongside and within other major theories such as Predictive Coding and The Free Energy Principle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available