4.7 Article

Methods for reducing interference in the Complementary Learning Systems model: Oscillating inhibition and autonomous memory rehearsal

期刊

NEURAL NETWORKS
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 1212-1228

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2005.08.010

关键词

hippocampus; neocortex; neural network; interference; learning algorithm; theta oscillations; sleep; consolidation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The stability-plasticity problem (i.e. how the brain incorporates new information into its model of the world, while at the same time preserving existing knowledge) has been at the forefront of computational memory research for several decades. In this paper, we critically evaluate how well the Complementary Learning Systems theory of hippocampo-cortical interactions addresses the stability-plasticity problem. We identify two major challenges for the model: Finding a learning algorithm for cortex and hippocampus that enacts selective strengthening of weak memories, and selective punishment of competing memories; and preventing catastrophic forgetting in the case of non-stationary environments (i.e. when items are temporarily removed from the training set). We then discuss potential solutions to these problems: First, we describe a recently developed learning algorithm that leverages neural oscillations to find weak parts of memories (so they can be strengthened) and strong competitors (so they can be punished), and we show how this algorithm outperforms other learning algorithms (CPCA Hebbian learning and Leabra at memorizing overlapping patterns. Second, we describe how autonomous re-activation of memories (separately in cortex and hippocampus) during REM sleep, coupled with the oscillating learning algorithm, can reduce the rate of forgetting of input patterns that are no longer present in the environment. We then present a simple demonstration of how this process can prevent catastrophic interference in an AB-AC learning paradigm. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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