↓ Skip to main content

Charles Bonnet Syndrome: Evidence for a Generative Model in the Cortex?

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Charles Bonnet Syndrome: Evidence for a Generative Model in the Cortex?
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003134
Pubmed ID
Authors

David P. Reichert, Peggy Seriès, Amos J. Storkey

Abstract

Several theories propose that the cortex implements an internal model to explain, predict, and learn about sensory data, but the nature of this model is unclear. One condition that could be highly informative here is Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS), where loss of vision leads to complex, vivid visual hallucinations of objects, people, and whole scenes. CBS could be taken as indication that there is a generative model in the brain, specifically one that can synthesise rich, consistent visual representations even in the absence of actual visual input. The processes that lead to CBS are poorly understood. Here, we argue that a model recently introduced in machine learning, the deep Boltzmann machine (DBM), could capture the relevant aspects of (hypothetical) generative processing in the cortex. The DBM carries both the semantics of a probabilistic generative model and of a neural network. The latter allows us to model a concrete neural mechanism that could underlie CBS, namely, homeostatic regulation of neuronal activity. We show that homeostatic plasticity could serve to make the learnt internal model robust against e.g. degradation of sensory input, but overcompensate in the case of CBS, leading to hallucinations. We demonstrate how a wide range of features of CBS can be explained in the model and suggest a potential role for the neuromodulator acetylcholine. This work constitutes the first concrete computational model of CBS and the first application of the DBM as a model in computational neuroscience. Our results lend further credence to the hypothesis of a generative model in the brain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Canada 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 141 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 26%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Master 17 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 8%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 17%
Neuroscience 26 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 12%
Computer Science 17 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 28 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,194,940
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#1,951
of 9,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,232
of 208,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#16
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 208,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.