Limits...
Learning structure of sensory inputs with synaptic plasticity leads to interference.

Chrol-Cannon J, Jin Y - Front Comput Neurosci (2015)

Bottom Line: Existing studies that have analyzed input-specific structural adaptation have used simplified, synthetic inputs in contrast to complex and noisy patterns found in real-world sensory data.However, plasticity does not improve the performance on sensory pattern recognition tasks, partly due to synaptic interference between consecutively presented input samples.To solve the problem of interference, we suggest that models of plasticity be extended to restrict neural activity and synaptic modification to a subset of the neural circuit, which is increasingly found to be the case in experimental neuroscience.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey Guildford, UK.

ABSTRACT
Synaptic plasticity is often explored as a form of unsupervised adaptation in cortical microcircuits to learn the structure of complex sensory inputs and thereby improve performance of classification and prediction. The question of whether the specific structure of the input patterns is encoded in the structure of neural networks has been largely neglected. Existing studies that have analyzed input-specific structural adaptation have used simplified, synthetic inputs in contrast to complex and noisy patterns found in real-world sensory data. In this work, input-specific structural changes are analyzed for three empirically derived models of plasticity applied to three temporal sensory classification tasks that include complex, real-world visual and auditory data. Two forms of spike-timing dependent plasticity (STDP) and the Bienenstock-Cooper-Munro (BCM) plasticity rule are used to adapt the recurrent network structure during the training process before performance is tested on the pattern recognition tasks. It is shown that synaptic adaptation is highly sensitive to specific classes of input pattern. However, plasticity does not improve the performance on sensory pattern recognition tasks, partly due to synaptic interference between consecutively presented input samples. The changes in synaptic strength produced by one stimulus are reversed by the presentation of another, thus largely preventing input-specific synaptic changes from being retained in the structure of the network. To solve the problem of interference, we suggest that models of plasticity be extended to restrict neural activity and synaptic modification to a subset of the neural circuit, which is increasingly found to be the case in experimental neuroscience.

No MeSH data available.


Plot of 500 of the 50,000 data samples generated according to Jaeger's tri-function system recognition time-series task (Jaeger, 2007).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4525052&req=5

Figure 4: Plot of 500 of the 50,000 data samples generated according to Jaeger's tri-function system recognition time-series task (Jaeger, 2007).

Mentions: A synthetic data set is generated to model a low spatial dimension but very high frequency temporal structure, in contrast to the previous two sensory tasks. Three functions generate time-varying single dimensional signals that the network learns to distinguish between. A complete description and method for generating the data is described in Jaeger (2007) (Figure 4) illustrates part of this signal.


Learning structure of sensory inputs with synaptic plasticity leads to interference.

Chrol-Cannon J, Jin Y - Front Comput Neurosci (2015)

Plot of 500 of the 50,000 data samples generated according to Jaeger's tri-function system recognition time-series task (Jaeger, 2007).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4525052&req=5

Figure 4: Plot of 500 of the 50,000 data samples generated according to Jaeger's tri-function system recognition time-series task (Jaeger, 2007).
Mentions: A synthetic data set is generated to model a low spatial dimension but very high frequency temporal structure, in contrast to the previous two sensory tasks. Three functions generate time-varying single dimensional signals that the network learns to distinguish between. A complete description and method for generating the data is described in Jaeger (2007) (Figure 4) illustrates part of this signal.

Bottom Line: Existing studies that have analyzed input-specific structural adaptation have used simplified, synthetic inputs in contrast to complex and noisy patterns found in real-world sensory data.However, plasticity does not improve the performance on sensory pattern recognition tasks, partly due to synaptic interference between consecutively presented input samples.To solve the problem of interference, we suggest that models of plasticity be extended to restrict neural activity and synaptic modification to a subset of the neural circuit, which is increasingly found to be the case in experimental neuroscience.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey Guildford, UK.

ABSTRACT
Synaptic plasticity is often explored as a form of unsupervised adaptation in cortical microcircuits to learn the structure of complex sensory inputs and thereby improve performance of classification and prediction. The question of whether the specific structure of the input patterns is encoded in the structure of neural networks has been largely neglected. Existing studies that have analyzed input-specific structural adaptation have used simplified, synthetic inputs in contrast to complex and noisy patterns found in real-world sensory data. In this work, input-specific structural changes are analyzed for three empirically derived models of plasticity applied to three temporal sensory classification tasks that include complex, real-world visual and auditory data. Two forms of spike-timing dependent plasticity (STDP) and the Bienenstock-Cooper-Munro (BCM) plasticity rule are used to adapt the recurrent network structure during the training process before performance is tested on the pattern recognition tasks. It is shown that synaptic adaptation is highly sensitive to specific classes of input pattern. However, plasticity does not improve the performance on sensory pattern recognition tasks, partly due to synaptic interference between consecutively presented input samples. The changes in synaptic strength produced by one stimulus are reversed by the presentation of another, thus largely preventing input-specific synaptic changes from being retained in the structure of the network. To solve the problem of interference, we suggest that models of plasticity be extended to restrict neural activity and synaptic modification to a subset of the neural circuit, which is increasingly found to be the case in experimental neuroscience.

No MeSH data available.