↓ Skip to main content

Fitting of dynamic recurrent neural network models to sensory stimulus-response data

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biological Physics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Fitting of dynamic recurrent neural network models to sensory stimulus-response data
Published in
Journal of Biological Physics, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10867-018-9501-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Ozgur Doruk, Kechen Zhang

Abstract

We present a theoretical study aiming at model fitting for sensory neurons. Conventional neural network training approaches are not applicable to this problem due to lack of continuous data. Although the stimulus can be considered as a smooth time-dependent variable, the associated response will be a set of neural spike timings (roughly the instants of successive action potential peaks) that have no amplitude information. A recurrent neural network model can be fitted to such a stimulus-response data pair by using the maximum likelihood estimation method where the likelihood function is derived from Poisson statistics of neural spiking. The universal approximation feature of the recurrent dynamical neuron network models allows us to describe excitatory-inhibitory characteristics of an actual sensory neural network with any desired number of neurons. The stimulus data are generated by a phased cosine Fourier series having a fixed amplitude and frequency but a randomly shot phase. Various values of amplitude, stimulus component size, and sample size are applied in order to examine the effect of the stimulus to the identification process. Results are presented in tabular and graphical forms at the end of this text. In addition, to demonstrate the success of this research, a study involving the same model, nominal parameters and stimulus structure, and another study that works on different models are compared to that of this research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 20%
Lecturer 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 7 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 3 20%
Computer Science 2 13%
Engineering 2 13%
Unknown 8 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,974,941
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Physics
#179
of 298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,422
of 329,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Physics
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 298 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.