↓ Skip to main content

Modeling place field activity with hierarchical slow feature analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, May 2015
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Modeling place field activity with hierarchical slow feature analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2015.00051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabian Schönfeld, Laurenz Wiskott

Abstract

What are the computational laws of hippocampal activity? In this paper we argue for the slowness principle as a fundamental processing paradigm behind hippocampal place cell firing. We present six different studies from the experimental literature, performed with real-life rats, that we replicated in computer simulations. Each of the chosen studies allows rodents to develop stable place fields and then examines a distinct property of the established spatial encoding: adaptation to cue relocation and removal; directional dependent firing in the linear track and open field; and morphing and scaling the environment itself. Simulations are based on a hierarchical Slow Feature Analysis (SFA) network topped by a principal component analysis (ICA) output layer. The slowness principle is shown to account for the main findings of the presented experimental studies. The SFA network generates its responses using raw visual input only, which adds to its biological plausibility but requires experiments performed in light conditions. Future iterations of the model will thus have to incorporate additional information, such as path integration and grid cell activity, in order to be able to also replicate studies that take place during darkness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 6%
United Kingdom 2 4%
France 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 42 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 27%
Researcher 13 27%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 20%
Computer Science 7 14%
Engineering 3 6%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 October 2020.
All research outputs
#3,183,919
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#154
of 1,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,627
of 267,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#4
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 267,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.