Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28158189›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

Insect Bio-inspired Neural Network Provides New Evidence on How Simple Feature Detectors Can Enable Complex Visual Generalization and Stimulus Location Invariance in the Miniature Brain of Honeybees.

Mark Roper, Chrisantha Fernando, Lars Chittka

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Designing Brains for Pain: Human to Mollusc.Frontiers in physiology · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Counting insects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Review
  12. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark RoperBiological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1135-6187
Chrisantha FernandoGoogle DeepMind, London, United Kingdom.
Lars ChittkaBiological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8153-1732
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to generalize over naturally occurring variation in cues indicating food or predation risk is highly useful for efficient decision-making in many animals. Honeybees have remarkable visual cognitive abilities, allowing them to classify visual patterns by common features despite having a relatively miniature brain. Here we ask the question whether generalization requires complex visual recognition or whether it can also be achieved with relatively simple neuronal mechanisms. We produced several simple models inspired by the known anatomical structures and neuronal responses within the bee brain and subsequently compared their ability to generalize achromatic patterns to the observed behavioural performance of honeybees on these cues. Neural networks with just eight large-field orientation-sensitive input neurons from the optic ganglia and a single layer of simple neuronal connectivity within the mushroom bodies (learning centres) show performances remarkably similar to a large proportion of the empirical results without requiring any form of learning, or fine-tuning of neuronal parameters to replicate these results. Indeed, a model simply combining sensory input from both eyes onto single mushroom body neurons returned correct discriminations even with partial occlusion of the patterns and an impressive invariance to the location of the test patterns on the eyes. This model also replicated surprising failures of bees to discriminate certain seemingly highly different patterns, providing novel and useful insights into the inner workings facilitating and limiting the utilisation of visual cues in honeybees. Our results reveal that reliable generalization of visual information can be achieved through simple neuronal circuitry that is biologically plausible and can easily be accommodated in a tiny insect brain.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalNeural Networks, ComputerAnimalsBeesBiomimeticsBrainComputer SimulationNerve NetPattern Recognition, AutomatedPattern Recognition, Visual

Identifiers

PMID28158189
PMCPMC5291356
OpenAlexW2585781292

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.