Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33746705›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021

Neural Coding in Spiking Neural Networks: A Comparative Study for Robust Neuromorphic Systems.

Wenzhe Guo, Mohammed E Fouda, Ahmed M Eltawil, Khaled Nabil Salama

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 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Spark: modular spiking neural networks.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Optoelectronic Devices for In-Sensor Computing.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Article
  12. Residual Stresses and Micro-voids Propel Metal Diffusion for Filament-Based Memristors.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Engineered biological neuronal networks as basic logic operators.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Wenzhe GuoSensors Laboratory, Advanced Membranes and Porous Materials Center (AMPMC), Computer, Electrical, and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering (CEMSE) Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed E FoudaCommunication and Computing Systems Laboratory, Computer, Electrical, and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering (CEMSE) Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed M EltawilCommunication and Computing Systems Laboratory, Computer, Electrical, and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering (CEMSE) Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.
Khaled Nabil SalamaSensors Laboratory, Advanced Membranes and Porous Materials Center (AMPMC), Computer, Electrical, and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering (CEMSE) Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various hypotheses of information representation in brain, referred to as neural codes, have been proposed to explain the information transmission between neurons. Neural coding plays an essential role in enabling the brain-inspired spiking neural networks (SNNs) to perform different tasks. To search for the best coding scheme, we performed an extensive comparative study on the impact and performance of four important neural coding schemes, namely, rate coding, time-to-first spike (TTFS) coding, phase coding, and burst coding. The comparative study was carried out using a biological 2-layer SNN trained with an unsupervised spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) algorithm. Various aspects of network performance were considered, including classification accuracy, processing latency, synaptic operations (SOPs), hardware implementation, network compression efficacy, input and synaptic noise resilience, and synaptic fault tolerance. The classification tasks on Modified National Institute of Standards and Technology (MNIST) and Fashion-MNIST datasets were applied in our study. For hardware implementation, area and power consumption were estimated for these coding schemes, and the network compression efficacy was analyzed using pruning and quantization techniques. Different types of input noise and noise variations in the datasets were considered and applied. Furthermore, the robustness of each coding scheme to the non-ideality-induced synaptic noise and fault in analog neuromorphic systems was studied and compared. Our results show that TTFS coding is the best choice in achieving the highest computational performance with very low hardware implementation overhead. TTFS coding requires 4x/7.5x lower processing latency and 3.5x/6.5x fewer SOPs than rate coding during the training/inference process. Phase coding is the most resilient scheme to input noise. Burst coding offers the highest network compression efficacy and the best overall robustness to hardware non-idealities for both training and inference processes. The study presented in this paper reveals the design space created by the choice of each coding scheme, allowing designers to frame each scheme in terms of its strength and weakness given a designs' constraints and considerations in neuromorphic systems.

Indexed as

burst codingneural codesneuromorphic computingphase codingrate codingspiking neural networkstime to first spike codingunsupervised learning

Identifiers

PMID33746705
PMCPMC7970006

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.