ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Competitive plasticity to reduce the energetic costs of learning.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. 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.
- Neuromodulatory Gating of Synaptic Plasticity: Mechanisms, Motivation, and Clinical Dysfunction Across Scales.Synapse (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Single-nucleus transcriptomic atlas of sexually dimorphic molecular responses to sub-chronic variable stress in the mouse hippocampus.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Reinforcement learning when your life depends on it: A neuro-economic theory of learning.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The brain is not only constrained by energy needed to fuel computation, but it is also constrained by energy needed to form memories. Experiments have shown that learning simple conditioning tasks which might require only a few synaptic updates, already carries a significant metabolic cost. Yet, learning a task like MNIST to 95% accuracy appears to require at least 108 synaptic updates. Therefore the brain has likely evolved to be able to learn using as little energy as possible. We explored the energy required for learning in feedforward neural networks. Based on a parsimonious energy model, we propose two plasticity restricting algorithms that save energy: 1) only modify synapses with large updates, and 2) restrict plasticity to subsets of synapses that form a path through the network. In biology networks are often much larger than the task requires, yet vanilla backprop prescribes to update all synapses. In particular in this case, large savings can be achieved while only incurring a slightly worse learning time. Thus competitively restricting plasticity helps to save metabolic energy associated to synaptic plasticity. The results might lead to a better understanding of biological plasticity and a better match between artificial and biological learning. Moreover, the algorithms might benefit hardware because also electronic memory storage is energetically costly.
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.