MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111737714 · doi:10.1162/neco_a_00237

Computational Advantages of Reverberating Loops for Sensorimotor Learning

2011· article· en· W2111737714 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Computation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkModels of neural computationArtificial intelligenceNeurosciencePsychologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When we learn something new, our brain may store the information in synapses or in reverberating loops of electrical activity, but current theories of motor learning focus almost entirely on the synapses. Here we show that loops could also play a role and would bring advantages: loop-based algorithms can learn complex control tasks faster, with exponentially fewer neurons, and avoid the problem of weight transport. They do all this at a cost: in the presence of long feedback delays, loop algorithms cannot control very fast movements, but in this case, loop and synaptic mechanisms can complement each other-mixed systems quickly learn to make accurate but not very fast motions and then gradually speed up. Loop algorithms explain aspects of consolidation, the role of attention, and the relapses that are sometimes seen after a task has apparently been learned, and they make further predictions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it