Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29875620›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2018

Performance Comparison of the Digital Neuromorphic Hardware SpiNNaker and the Neural Network Simulation Software NEST for a Full-Scale Cortical Microcircuit Model.

Sacha J van Albada, Andrew G Rowley, Johanna Senk, Michael Hopkins, Maximilian Schmidt, Alan B Stokes, David R Lester, Markus Diesmann, Steve B Furber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Building on models-a perspective for computational neuroscience.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Connectivity concepts in neuronal network modeling.PLoS computational biology · 2022
    Review
  20. Neuromorphic artificial intelligence systems.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022
    Review
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

9 authors.

Sacha J van AlbadaInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6), JARA Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10), Jülich Research Centre Jülich, Germany.
Andrew G RowleyAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Johanna SenkInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6), JARA Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10), Jülich Research Centre Jülich, Germany.
Michael HopkinsAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Maximilian SchmidtInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6), JARA Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10), Jülich Research Centre Jülich, Germany.
Alan B StokesAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
David R LesterAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Markus DiesmannInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6), JARA Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10), Jülich Research Centre Jülich, Germany.
Steve B FurberAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The digital neuromorphic hardware SpiNNaker has been developed with the aim of enabling large-scale neural network simulations in real time and with low power consumption. Real-time performance is achieved with 1 ms integration time steps, and thus applies to neural networks for which faster time scales of the dynamics can be neglected. By slowing down the simulation, shorter integration time steps and hence faster time scales, which are often biologically relevant, can be incorporated. We here describe the first full-scale simulations of a cortical microcircuit with biological time scales on SpiNNaker. Since about half the synapses onto the neurons arise within the microcircuit, larger cortical circuits have only moderately more synapses per neuron. Therefore, the full-scale microcircuit paves the way for simulating cortical circuits of arbitrary size. With approximately 80, 000 neurons and 0.3 billion synapses, this model is the largest simulated on SpiNNaker to date. The scale-up is enabled by recent developments in the SpiNNaker software stack that allow simulations to be spread across multiple boards. Comparison with simulations using the NEST software on a high-performance cluster shows that both simulators can reach a similar accuracy, despite the fixed-point arithmetic of SpiNNaker, demonstrating the usability of SpiNNaker for computational neuroscience applications with biological time scales and large network size. The runtime and power consumption are also assessed for both simulators on the example of the cortical microcircuit model. To obtain an accuracy similar to that of NEST with 0.1 ms time steps, SpiNNaker requires a slowdown factor of around 20 compared to real time. The runtime for NEST saturates around 3 times real time using hybrid parallelization with MPI and multi-threading. However, achieving this runtime comes at the cost of increased power and energy consumption. The lowest total energy consumption for NEST is reached at around 144 parallel threads and 4.6 times slowdown. At this setting, NEST and SpiNNaker have a comparable energy consumption per synaptic event. Our results widen the application domain of SpiNNaker and help guide its development, showing that further optimizations such as synapse-centric network representation are necessary to enable real-time simulation of large biological neural networks.

Indexed as

accuracy of simulationbenchmarkingcomputational neuroscienceenergy to solutionhigh-performance computingneuromorphic computingparallel computingstrong scaling

Identifiers

PMID29875620
PMCPMC5974216

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.