↓ Skip to main content

Conduction Delay Learning Model for Unsupervised and Supervised Classification of Spatio-Temporal Spike Patterns

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
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
Conduction Delay Learning Model for Unsupervised and Supervised Classification of Spatio-Temporal Spike Patterns
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2017.00104
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takashi Matsubara

Abstract

Precise spike timing is considered to play a fundamental role in communications and signal processing in biological neural networks. Understanding the mechanism of spike timing adjustment would deepen our understanding of biological systems and enable advanced engineering applications such as efficient computational architectures. However, the biological mechanisms that adjust and maintain spike timing remain unclear. Existing algorithms adopt a supervised approach, which adjusts the axonal conduction delay and synaptic efficacy until the spike timings approximate the desired timings. This study proposes a spike timing-dependent learning model that adjusts the axonal conduction delay and synaptic efficacy in both unsupervised and supervised manners. The proposed learning algorithm approximates the Expectation-Maximization algorithm, and classifies the input data encoded into spatio-temporal spike patterns. Even in the supervised classification, the algorithm requires no external spikes indicating the desired spike timings unlike existing algorithms. Furthermore, because the algorithm is consistent with biological models and hypotheses found in existing biological studies, it could capture the mechanism underlying biological delay learning.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 26%
Engineering 4 21%
Neuroscience 3 16%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Mathematics 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
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 02 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,576,855
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#1,056
of 1,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325,430
of 437,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 437,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.