Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27092061›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroanatomy2016

Large-Scale Simulations of Plastic Neural Networks on Neuromorphic Hardware.

James C Knight, Philip J Tully, Bernhard A Kaplan, Anders Lansner, Steve B Furber

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroanatomy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Limits of Neural Computation in Humans and Machines.Science and engineering ethics · 2020
    Article
  2. Optimizing BCPNN Learning Rule for Memory Access.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

James C KnightAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester Manchester, UK.
Philip J TullyDepartment of Computational Biology, Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholm, Sweden; Stockholm Brain Institute, Karolinska InstituteStockholm, Sweden; Institute for Adaptive and Neural Computation, School of Informatics, University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK.
Bernhard A KaplanDepartment of Visualization and Data Analysis, Zuse Institute Berlin Berlin, Germany.
Anders LansnerDepartment of Computational Biology, Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholm, Sweden; Stockholm Brain Institute, Karolinska InstituteStockholm, Sweden; Department of Numerical analysis and Computer Science, Stockholm UniversityStockholm, Sweden.
Steve B FurberAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester Manchester, UK.
University of Manchester · GBKarolinska Institutet · SEStockholm University · SEZuse Institute Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

SpiNNaker is a digital, neuromorphic architecture designed for simulating large-scale spiking neural networks at speeds close to biological real-time. Rather than using bespoke analog or digital hardware, the basic computational unit of a SpiNNaker system is a general-purpose ARM processor, allowing it to be programmed to simulate a wide variety of neuron and synapse models. This flexibility is particularly valuable in the study of biological plasticity phenomena. A recently proposed learning rule based on the Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN) paradigm offers a generic framework for modeling the interaction of different plasticity mechanisms using spiking neurons. However, it can be computationally expensive to simulate large networks with BCPNN learning since it requires multiple state variables for each synapse, each of which needs to be updated every simulation time-step. We discuss the trade-offs in efficiency and accuracy involved in developing an event-based BCPNN implementation for SpiNNaker based on an analytical solution to the BCPNN equations, and detail the steps taken to fit this within the limited computational and memory resources of the SpiNNaker architecture. We demonstrate this learning rule by learning temporal sequences of neural activity within a recurrent attractor network which we simulate at scales of up to 2.0 × 104 neurons and 5.1 × 107 plastic synapses: the largest plastic neural network ever to be simulated on neuromorphic hardware. We also run a comparable simulation on a Cray XC-30 supercomputer system and find that, if it is to match the run-time of our SpiNNaker simulation, the super computer system uses approximately 45× more power. This suggests that cheaper, more power efficient neuromorphic systems are becoming useful discovery tools in the study of plasticity in large-scale brain models.

Indexed as

Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN)digital neuromorphic hardwareevent-driven simulationfixed-point accuracylearningplasticitySpiNNaker

Identifiers

PMID27092061
PMCPMC4823276
OpenAlexW2319785071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.