ArticleFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2023
Toward reproducible models of sequence learning: replication and analysis of a modular spiking network with reward-based learning.
Article in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning to express reward prediction error-like dopaminergic activity requires plastic representations of time.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Article
- Toward reproducible models of sequence learning: replication and analysis of a modular spiking network with reward-based learning.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To acquire statistical regularities from the world, the brain must reliably process, and learn from, spatio-temporally structured information. Although an increasing number of computational models have attempted to explain how such sequence learning may be implemented in the neural hardware, many remain limited in functionality or lack biophysical plausibility. If we are to harvest the knowledge within these models and arrive at a deeper mechanistic understanding of sequential processing in cortical circuits, it is critical that the models and their findings are accessible, reproducible, and quantitatively comparable. Here we illustrate the importance of these aspects by providing a thorough investigation of a recently proposed sequence learning model. We re-implement the modular columnar architecture and reward-based learning rule in the open-source NEST simulator, and successfully replicate the main findings of the original study. Building on these, we perform an in-depth analysis of the model's robustness to parameter settings and underlying assumptions, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. We demonstrate a limitation of the model consisting in the hard-wiring of the sequence order in the connectivity patterns, and suggest possible solutions. Finally, we show that the core functionality of the model is retained under more biologically-plausible constraints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.