ArticleCognitive neurodynamics2024
Coincidence detection and integration behavior in spiking neural networks.
Article in Cognitive neurodynamics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Difference Neuron-a new spiking neuron model.Biological cybernetics · 2026Article
- Prediction, syntax and semantic grounding in the brain and large language models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Bridged artificial neurons based on memristor circuit for spiking propagation network and coincidence detection.iScience · 2026Article
- Synaptic Synchronization-Based Learning of Pattern Separation in Self-Organizing Probabilistic Spiking Neural Networks.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Dendritic synaptic integration modes under in vivo-like states.Biophysical journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, the interest in spiking neural networks (SNNs) remarkably increased, as up to now some key advances of biological neural networks are still out of reach. Thus, the energy efficiency and the ability to dynamically react and adapt to input stimuli as observed in biological neurons is still difficult to achieve. One neuron model commonly used in SNNs is the leaky-integrate-and-fire (LIF) neuron. LIF neurons already show interesting dynamics and can be run in two operation modes: coincidence detectors for low and integrators for high membrane decay times, respectively. However, the emergence of these modes in SNNs and the consequence on network performance and information processing ability is still elusive. In this study, we examine the effect of different decay times in SNNs trained with a surrogate-gradient-based approach. We propose two measures that allow to determine the operation mode of LIF neurons: the number of contributing input spikes and the effective integration interval. We show that coincidence detection is characterized by a low number of input spikes as well as short integration intervals, whereas integration behavior is related to many input spikes over long integration intervals. We find the two measures to linearly correlate via a correlation factor that depends on the decay time. Thus, the correlation factor as function of the decay time shows a powerlaw behavior, which could be an intrinsic property of LIF networks. We argue that our work could be a starting point to further explore the operation modes in SNNs to boost efficiency and biological plausibility. Supplementary Information: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11571-023-10038-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.