ArticleeLife2024
Aligned and oblique dynamics in recurrent neural networks.
Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structure, disorder, and dynamics in task-trained recurrent neural circuits.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Learning neural dynamics through instructive signals.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Task-Parametrized Dynamics: Representation of Time and Decisions in Recurrent Neural Networks.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Stochastic activity in low-rank recurrent neural networks.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Balanced state of networks of winner-take-all units.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Single-unit activations confer inductive biases for emergent circuit solutions to cognitive tasks.Nature machine intelligence · 2025Article
- Computational role of structure in neural activity and connectivity.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024Review
- Transition to chaos separates learning regimes and relates to measure of consciousness in recurrent neural networks.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Specific connectivity optimizes learning in thalamocortical loops.Cell reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The relation between neural activity and behaviorally relevant variables is at the heart of neuroscience research. When strong, this relation is termed a neural representation. There is increasing evidence, however, for partial dissociations between activity in an area and relevant external variables. While many explanations have been proposed, a theoretical framework for the relationship between external and internal variables is lacking. Here, we utilize recurrent neural networks (RNNs) to explore the question of when and how neural dynamics and the network's output are related from a geometrical point of view. We find that training RNNs can lead to two dynamical regimes: dynamics can either be aligned with the directions that generate output variables, or oblique to them. We show that the choice of readout weight magnitude before training can serve as a control knob between the regimes, similar to recent findings in feedforward networks. These regimes are functionally distinct. Oblique networks are more heterogeneous and suppress noise in their output directions. They are furthermore more robust to perturbations along the output directions. Crucially, the oblique regime is specific to recurrent (but not feedforward) networks, arising from dynamical stability considerations. Finally, we show that tendencies toward the aligned or the oblique regime can be dissociated in neural recordings. Altogether, our results open a new perspective for interpreting neural activity by relating network dynamics and their output.
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.