ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2015
Comparing Neuromorphic Solutions in Action: Implementing a Bio-Inspired Solution to a Benchmark Classification Task on Three Parallel-Computing Platforms.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building on models-a perspective for computational neuroscience.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Close to the metal: Towards a material political economy of the epistemology of computation.Social studies of science · 2024Article
- Integration of neuromorphic AI in event-driven distributed digitized systems: Concepts and research directions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Application of Neuromorphic Olfactory Approach for High-Accuracy Classification of Malts.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Arpra: An Arbitrary Precision Range Analysis Library.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2021Article
- Benchmarking Highly Parallel Hardware for Spiking Neural Networks in Robotics.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Application of a Brain-Inspired Spiking Neural Network Architecture to Odor Data Classification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- A Hardware-Deployable Neuromorphic Solution for Encoding and Classification of Electronic Nose Data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- An unsupervised neuromorphic clustering algorithm.Biological cybernetics · 2019Article
- Making BREAD: Biomimetic Strategies for Artificial Intelligence Now and in the Future.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Review
- GPUs Outperform Current HPC and Neuromorphic Solutions in Terms of Speed and Energy When Simulating a Highly-Connected Cortical Model.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
- Neuromodulated Synaptic Plasticity on the SpiNNaker Neuromorphic System.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
- Neuromorphic photonic networks using silicon photonic weight banks.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Binary Associative Memories as a Benchmark for Spiking Neuromorphic Hardware.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neuromorphic computing employs models of neuronal circuits to solve computing problems. Neuromorphic hardware systems are now becoming more widely available and "neuromorphic algorithms" are being developed. As they are maturing toward deployment in general research environments, it becomes important to assess and compare them in the context of the applications they are meant to solve. This should encompass not just task performance, but also ease of implementation, speed of processing, scalability, and power efficiency. Here, we report our practical experience of implementing a bio-inspired, spiking network for multivariate classification on three different platforms: the hybrid digital/analog Spikey system, the digital spike-based SpiNNaker system, and GeNN, a meta-compiler for parallel GPU hardware. We assess performance using a standard hand-written digit classification task. We found that whilst a different implementation approach was required for each platform, classification performances remained in line. This suggests that all three implementations were able to exercise the model's ability to solve the task rather than exposing inherent platform limits, although differences emerged when capacity was approached. With respect to execution speed and power consumption, we found that for each platform a large fraction of the computing time was spent outside of the neuromorphic device, on the host machine. Time was spent in a range of combinations of preparing the model, encoding suitable input spiking data, shifting data, and decoding spike-encoded results. This is also where a large proportion of the total power was consumed, most markedly for the SpiNNaker and Spikey systems. We conclude that the simulation efficiency advantage of the assessed specialized hardware systems is easily lost in excessive host-device communication, or non-neuronal parts of the computation. These results emphasize the need to optimize the host-device communication architecture for scalability, maximum throughput, and minimum latency. Moreover, our results indicate that special attention should be paid to minimize host-device communication when designing and implementing networks for efficient neuromorphic computing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.