4.4 Article

Deep Predictive Learning in Neocortex and Pulvinar

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 1158-1196

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_01708

关键词

-

资金

  1. ONR [N00014-19-1-2684/N00014-18-1-2116, N00014-14-1-0670/N00014-16-1-2128, N00014-18-C-2067, N00014-13-10067, D00014-12-C-0638]
  2. National Science Foundation [CNS-0821794]
  3. University of Colorado Boulder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Humans learn from raw sensory experience through a mechanism driven by the differences between predictions and actual outcomes. Feedback signals from actual outcomes adjust synaptic connections in the brain, facilitating error backpropagation learning for systematic categorization based on invariant shape properties.
How do humans learn from raw sensory experience? Throughout life, but most obviously in infancy, we learn without explicit instruction. We propose a detailed biological mechanism for the widely embraced idea that learning is driven by the differences between predictions and actual outcomes (i.e., predictive error-driven learning). Specifically, numerous weak projections into the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus generate top-down predictions, and sparse driver inputs from lower areas supply the actual outcome, originating in Layer 5 intrinsic bursting neurons. Thus, the outcome representation is only briefly activated, roughly every 100 msec (i.e., 10 Hz, alpha), resulting in a temporal difference error signal, which drives local synaptic changes throughout the neocortex. This results in a biologically plausible form of error backpropagation learning. We implemented these mechanisms in a large-scale model of the visual system and found that the simulated inferotemporal pathway learns to systematically categorize 3-D objects according to invariant shape properties, based solely on predictive learning from raw visual inputs. These categories match human judgments on the same stimuli and are consistent with neural representations in inferotemporal cortex in primates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据