↓ Skip to main content

Hebbian Plasticity Realigns Grid Cell Activity with External Sensory Cues in Continuous Attractor Models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Hebbian Plasticity Realigns Grid Cell Activity with External Sensory Cues in Continuous Attractor Models
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2016.00013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcello Mulas, Nicolai Waniek, Jörg Conradt

Abstract

After the discovery of grid cells, which are an essential component to understand how the mammalian brain encodes spatial information, three main classes of computational models were proposed in order to explain their working principles. Amongst them, the one based on continuous attractor networks (CAN), is promising in terms of biological plausibility and suitable for robotic applications. However, in its current formulation, it is unable to reproduce important electrophysiological findings and cannot be used to perform path integration for long periods of time. In fact, in absence of an appropriate resetting mechanism, the accumulation of errors over time due to the noise intrinsic in velocity estimation and neural computation prevents CAN models to reproduce stable spatial grid patterns. In this paper, we propose an extension of the CAN model using Hebbian plasticity to anchor grid cell activity to environmental landmarks. To validate our approach we used as input to the neural simulations both artificial data and real data recorded from a robotic setup. The additional neural mechanism can not only anchor grid patterns to external sensory cues but also recall grid patterns generated in previously explored environments. These results might be instrumental for next generation bio-inspired robotic navigation algorithms that take advantage of neural computation in order to cope with complex and dynamic environments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 7%
Germany 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 41 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Researcher 10 22%
Student > Master 6 13%
Professor 2 4%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 33%
Neuroscience 8 17%
Computer Science 4 9%
Engineering 3 7%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 22%
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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,345,702
of 23,573,357 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#982
of 1,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,785
of 299,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,357 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 299,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.