4.6 Article

A Digital Hardware Realization for Spiking Model of Cutaneous Mechanoreceptor

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00322

关键词

mechanoreceptor; hardware implementation; tactile sensing; spiking model; neuromorphic circuit

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program [785907]
  2. Ministry of Health and Medical Education (Deputy of Research and Technology)
  3. Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inspired by the biology of human tactile perception, a hardware neuromorphic approach is proposed for spiking model of mechanoreceptors to encode the input force. In this way, a digital circuit is designed for a slowly adapting type I (SA-I) and fast adapting type I (FA-I) mechanoreceptors to be implemented on a low-cost digital hardware, such as field-programmable gate array (FPGA). This system computationally replicates the neural firing responses of both afferents. Then, comparative simulations are shown. The spiking models of mechanoreceptors are first simulated in MATLAB and next the digital neuromorphic circuits simulated in VIVADO are also compared to show that obtained results are in good agreement both quantitatively and qualitatively. Finally, we test the performance of the proposed digital mechanoreceptors in hardware using a prepared experimental set up. Hardware synthesis and physical realization on FPGA indicate that the digital mechanoreceptors are able to replicate essential characteristics of different firing patterns including bursting and spiking responses of the SA-I and FA-I mechanoreceptors. In addition to parallel computation, a main advantage of this method is that the mechanoreceptor digital circuits can be implemented in real-time through low-power neuromorphic hardware. This novel engineering framework is generally suitable for use in robotic and hand-prosthetic applications, so progressing the state of the art for tactile sensing.

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