↓ Skip to main content

Alternative time representation in dopamine models

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Computational Neuroscience, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
Title
Alternative time representation in dopamine models
Published in
Journal of Computational Neuroscience, October 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10827-009-0191-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Rivest, John F. Kalaska, Yoshua Bengio

Abstract

Dopaminergic neuron activity has been modeled during learning and appetitive behavior, most commonly using the temporal-difference (TD) algorithm. However, a proper representation of elapsed time and of the exact task is usually required for the model to work. Most models use timing elements such as delay-line representations of time that are not biologically realistic for intervals in the range of seconds. The interval-timing literature provides several alternatives. One of them is that timing could emerge from general network dynamics, instead of coming from a dedicated circuit. Here, we present a general rate-based learning model based on long short-term memory (LSTM) networks that learns a time representation when needed. Using a naïve network learning its environment in conjunction with TD, we reproduce dopamine activity in appetitive trace conditioning with a constant CS-US interval, including probe trials with unexpected delays. The proposed model learns a representation of the environment dynamics in an adaptive biologically plausible framework, without recourse to delay lines or other special-purpose circuits. Instead, the model predicts that the task-dependent representation of time is learned by experience, is encoded in ramp-like changes in single-neuron activity distributed across small neural networks, and reflects a temporal integration mechanism resulting from the inherent dynamics of recurrent loops within the network. The model also reproduces the known finding that trace conditioning is more difficult than delay conditioning and that the learned representation of the task can be highly dependent on the types of trials experienced during training. Finally, it suggests that the phasic dopaminergic signal could facilitate learning in the cortex.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 4 4%
Germany 4 4%
United Kingdom 4 4%
United States 3 3%
France 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 83 78%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 27%
Researcher 23 22%
Professor 11 10%
Student > Master 10 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 8 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 24%
Psychology 22 21%
Computer Science 19 18%
Neuroscience 9 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 12 11%
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 01 February 2010.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Computational Neuroscience
#168
of 306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,034
of 93,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Computational Neuroscience
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 306 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 93,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them