A New Synaptic Plasticity Rule for Networks of Spiking Neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we describe a new Synaptic Plasticity Activity Rule (SAPR) developed for use in networks of spiking neurons. Such networks can be used for simulations of physiological experiments as well as for other computations like image analysis. Most synaptic plasticity rules use artificially defined functions to modify synaptic connection strengths. In contrast, our rule makes use of the existing postsynaptic potential values to compute the value of adjustment. The network of spiking neurons we consider consists of excitatory and inhibitory neurons. Each neuron is implemented as an integrate-and-fire model that accurately mimics the behavior of biological neurons. To test performance of our new plasticity rule we designed a model of a biologically-inspired signal processing system, and used it for object detection in eye images of diabetic retinopathy patients, and lung images of cystic fibrosis patients. The results show that the network detects the edges of objects within an image, essentially segmenting it. Our ultimate goal, however, is not the development of an image segmentation tool that would be more efficient than nonbiological algorithms, but developing a physiologically correct neural network model that could be applied to a wide range of neurological experiments. We decided to validate the SAPR by using it in a network of spiking neurons for image segmentation because it is easy to visually assess the results. An important thing is that image segmentation is done in an entirely unsupervised way.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".