↓ Skip to main content

The Convallis Rule for Unsupervised Learning in Cortical Networks

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
citeulike
5 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
The Convallis Rule for Unsupervised Learning in Cortical Networks
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, October 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003272
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre Yger, Kenneth D. Harris

Abstract

The phenomenology and cellular mechanisms of cortical synaptic plasticity are becoming known in increasing detail, but the computational principles by which cortical plasticity enables the development of sensory representations are unclear. Here we describe a framework for cortical synaptic plasticity termed the "Convallis rule", mathematically derived from a principle of unsupervised learning via constrained optimization. Implementation of the rule caused a recurrent cortex-like network of simulated spiking neurons to develop rate representations of real-world speech stimuli, enabling classification by a downstream linear decoder. Applied to spike patterns used in in vitro plasticity experiments, the rule reproduced multiple results including and beyond STDP. However STDP alone produced poorer learning performance. The mathematical form of the rule is consistent with a dual coincidence detector mechanism that has been suggested by experiments in several synaptic classes of juvenile neocortex. Based on this confluence of normative, phenomenological, and mechanistic evidence, we suggest that the rule may approximate a fundamental computational principle of the neocortex.

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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 3%
France 3 3%
Switzerland 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Belgium 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Estonia 1 1%
Unknown 79 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Student > Master 13 14%
Professor 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 21 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 22%
Computer Science 17 18%
Engineering 7 8%
Physics and Astronomy 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 8 9%
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 31 October 2013.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,953
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,980
of 224,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#124
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 224,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.