↓ Skip to main content

Synaptic Plasticity and Connectivity Requirements to Produce Stimulus-Pair Specific Responses in Recurrent Networks of Spiking Neurons

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Synaptic Plasticity and Connectivity Requirements to Produce Stimulus-Pair Specific Responses in Recurrent Networks of Spiking Neurons
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, February 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001091
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark A. Bourjaily, Paul Miller

Abstract

Animals must respond selectively to specific combinations of salient environmental stimuli in order to survive in complex environments. A task with these features, biconditional discrimination, requires responses to select pairs of stimuli that are opposite to responses to those stimuli in another combination. We investigate the characteristics of synaptic plasticity and network connectivity needed to produce stimulus-pair neural responses within randomly connected model networks of spiking neurons trained in biconditional discrimination. Using reward-based plasticity for synapses from the random associative network onto a winner-takes-all decision-making network representing perceptual decision-making, we find that reliably correct decision making requires upstream neurons with strong stimulus-pair selectivity. By chance, selective neurons were present in initial networks; appropriate plasticity mechanisms improved task performance by enhancing the initial diversity of responses. We find long-term potentiation of inhibition to be the most beneficial plasticity rule by suppressing weak responses to produce reliably correct decisions across an extensive range of networks.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 6%
Germany 4 5%
Brazil 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Estonia 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Unknown 70 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 31%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 5 6%
Professor 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 29%
Neuroscience 16 19%
Computer Science 13 16%
Psychology 8 10%
Engineering 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 4 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 March 2019.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,968
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,976
of 117,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#43
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 117,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.