↓ Skip to main content

Subtractive, divisive and non-monotonic gain control in feedforward nets linearized by noise and delays

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Subtractive, divisive and non-monotonic gain control in feedforward nets linearized by noise and delays
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2014.00019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge F. Mejias, Alexandre Payeur, Erik Selin, Leonard Maler, André Longtin

Abstract

The control of input-to-output mappings, or gain control, is one of the main strategies used by neural networks for the processing and gating of information. Using a spiking neural network model, we studied the gain control induced by a form of inhibitory feedforward circuitry-also known as "open-loop feedback"-, which has been experimentally observed in a cerebellum-like structure in weakly electric fish. We found, both analytically and numerically, that this network displays three different regimes of gain control: subtractive, divisive, and non-monotonic. Subtractive gain control was obtained when noise is very low in the network. Also, it was possible to change from divisive to non-monotonic gain control by simply modulating the strength of the feedforward inhibition, which may be achieved via long-term synaptic plasticity. The particular case of divisive gain control has been previously observed in vivo in weakly electric fish. These gain control regimes were robust to the presence of temporal delays in the inhibitory feedforward pathway, which were found to linearize the input-to-output mappings (or f-I curves) via a novel variability-increasing mechanism. Our findings highlight the feedforward-induced gain control analyzed here as a highly versatile mechanism of information gating in the brain.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 38%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 31%
Neuroscience 10 24%
Computer Science 3 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 6 14%
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 2014.
All research outputs
#15,316,141
of 24,284,650 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#714
of 1,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,887
of 315,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,284,650 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 1,407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 315,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.