4.5 Article

Closed-form treatment of the interactions between neuronal activity and timing-dependent plasticity in networks of linear neurons

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS RES FOUND
DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2010.00134

关键词

spike-timing-dependent plasticity; differential Hebbian plasticity; recurrent networks; stability analysis; asymmetric STDP; long-term potentiation; long-term depression

资金

  1. German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) via the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience (BCCN) Gottingen [01GQ1005A, 01GQ1005B]
  2. Max Planck Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Network activity and network connectivity mutually influence each other. Especially for fast processes, like spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP), which depends on the interaction of few (two) signals, the question arises how these interactions are continuously altering the behavior and structure of the network. To address this question a time-continuous treatment of plasticity is required. However, this is - even in simple recurrent network structures - currently not possible. Thus, here we develop for a linear differential Hebbian learning system a method by which we can analytically investigate the dynamics and stability of the connections in recurrent networks. We use noisy periodic external input signals, which through the recurrent connections lead to complex actual ongoing inputs and observe that large stable ranges emerge in these networks without boundaries or weight-normalization. Somewhat counter-intuitively, we find that about 40% of these cases are obtained with a long-term potentiation-dominated STDP curve. Noise can reduce stability in some cases, but generally this does not occur. Instead stable domains are often enlarged. This study is a first step toward a better understanding of the ongoing interactions between activity and plasticity in recurrent networks using STDP. The results suggest that stability of (sub-)networks should generically be present also in larger structures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据