4.6 Article

Spike Timing or Rate? Neurons Learn to Make Decisions for Both Through Threshold-Driven Plasticity

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 2178-2189

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2018.2821692

关键词

Feature extraction; multispike learning; pattern recognition; spiking neuron

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61806139, 61771333, U1736219]
  2. City University of Hong Kong Research Fund [9610397]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spikes play an essential role in information transmission in central nervous system, but how neurons learn from them remains a challenging question. Most algorithms studied how to train spiking neurons to process patterns encoded with a sole assumption of either a rate or a temporal code. Is there a general learning algorithm capable of processing both codes regardless of the intense debate on them within neuroscience community? In this paper, we propose several threshold-driven plasticity algorithms to address the above question. In addition to formulating the algorithms, we also provide proofs with respect to several properties, such as robustness and convergence. The experimental results illustrate that our algorithms are simple, effective and yet efficient for training neurons to learn spike patterns. Due to their simplicity and high efficiency, our algorithms would be potentially beneficial for both software and hardware implementations. Neurons with our algorithms can also detect and recognize embedded features from a background sensory activity. With the as-proposed algorithms, a single neuron can successfully perform multicategory classifications by making decisions based on its output spike number in response to each category. Spike patterns being processed can be encoded with both spike rates and precise timings. When afferent spike timings matter, neurons will automatically extract temporal features without being explicitly instructed as to which point to fire.

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

4.6
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