Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33679293›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021

Gianluca Susi, Luis F Antón-Toro, Fernando Maestú, Ernesto Pereda, Claudio Mirasso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Gianluca SusiUPM-UCM Laboratory of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience, Centro de Tecnologia Biomedica, Madrid, Spain.
Luis F Antón-ToroUPM-UCM Laboratory of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience, Centro de Tecnologia Biomedica, Madrid, Spain.
Fernando MaestúUPM-UCM Laboratory of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience, Centro de Tecnologia Biomedica, Madrid, Spain.
Ernesto PeredaUPM-UCM Laboratory of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience, Centro de Tecnologia Biomedica, Madrid, Spain.
Claudio MirassoInstituto de Física Interdisciplinar y Sistemas Complejos (IFISC, UIB-CSIC), Palma de Mallorca, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent "multi-neuronal spike sequence detector" (MNSD) architecture integrates the weight- and delay-adjustment methods by combining heterosynaptic plasticity with the neurocomputational feature spike latency, representing a new opportunity to understand the mechanisms underlying biological learning. Unfortunately, the range of problems to which this topology can be applied is limited because of the low cardinality of the parallel spike trains that it can process, and the lack of a visualization mechanism to understand its internal operation. We present here the nMNSD structure, which is a generalization of the MNSD to any number of inputs. The mathematical framework of the structure is introduced, together with the "trapezoid method," that is a reduced method to analyze the recognition mechanism operated by the nMNSD in response to a specific input parallel spike train. We apply the nMNSD to a classification problem previously faced with the classical MNSD from the same authors, showing the new possibilities the nMNSD opens, with associated improvement in classification performances. Finally, we benchmark the nMNSD on the classification of static inputs (MNIST database) obtaining state-of-the-art accuracies together with advantageous aspects in terms of time- and energy-efficiency if compared to similar classification methods.

Indexed as

classificationdelay learningheterosynaptic plasticityMNIST databaseMNSDonline learningspike latency

Identifiers

PMID33679293
PMCPMC7933525

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.