MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767003055

A General Purpose Architecture for Building Spiking Neuron Models of Biological Cognition - eScholarship

2013· article· en· W2767003055 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Eliasmith, Terrence C. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCognitive architectureObject (grammar)PhraseSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceCognitionCognitive modelCognitive sciencePsychologyProgramming languageNeuroscience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A General Purpose Architecture for Building Spiking Neuron Models of Biological Cognition Chris Eliasmith (celiasmith@uwaterloo.ca) Terrence C. Stewart (tcstewar@uwaterloo.ca) Center for Theoretical Neuroscience, University of Waterloo 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada Keywords: SPAUN, cognitive modeling; neural engineering; representation; decision making; working memory; cognitive architecture; cognitive control; semantic pointers class Rules: def read_action(category='ACTION'): set(action=vision*2) def read_object(category='OBJECT'): set(object=vision*2) def do_write(vision='DONE', phrase='ACTION*WRITE', scale=0.5): set(motor=phrase*'~OBJECT') def do_write_remembered(vision='DONE', phrase='ACTION*WRITE+OBJECT*NUMBER'): set(motor=memory) def do_remember(vision='DONE', phrase='ACTION*REMEMBER', scale=0.5): set(memory=phrase*'~OBJECT') Tutorial Objectives We have recently created the world's largest biologically realistic brain model that is capable of performing tasks (Eliasmith et al., 2012). This model uses 2.5 million spiking neurons, takes visual input from a 28x28 pixel visual field, and controls a physically modelled arm. By presenting different visual inputs, the model can perform eight different tasks, including memorizing and writing a list of numbers, single-digit addition via counting, and flexible pattern completion in the Raven's Matrices task. This tutorial is meant to introduce the software toolkit and theoretical background that would allow other researchers to build their own models using the same architecture, allowing them to explore other tasks and brain functions. This tool supports a novel cognitive architecture (SPA; the Semantic Pointer Architecture) that directly connects neuroscience with cognitive science. Our previous tutorials have focused on the underlying theory of the Neural Engineering Framework (NEF; Eliasmith and Anderson, 2003), a general method for implementing high-level cognitive theories using biologically realistic spiking neurons. In this tutorial, our emphasis will be on building large-scale models with our open-source toolkit Nengo ( ). The tutorial will be the first presentation of our Semantic Pointer Architecture, a Python module for Nengo which takes a high-level description of the desired cognitive system, including (basic) visual processing, motor control, working memory, associative memory, and cognitive control. The software takes this specification and creates a biologically realistic neural model, including various cortical areas, the basal ganglia, and the thalamus. An example model using the SPA is shown in Figure 1. It is able to follow basic commands such as “WRITE TWO” and “REMEMBER THREE WRITE NUMBER”. When run in Nengo, this creates a model with 48,000 spiking neurons and produces predictions of spike patterns, firing rates, fMRI time-courses, accuracy, and reaction times. Complete details can be found in the book How to Build a Brain (Eliasmith, 2013). Participants will leave the tutorial having interactively used a method for constructing cognitive models with spiking neurons, and experience using that method in an intuitive software environment. class Parser(SPA): vision = Vision() category = Buffer(feedback=0) action = Buffer(feedback=0) object = Buffer(feedback=0) actionC = Cleanup(mutual_inhibit=0.5) objectC = Cleanup(mutual_inhibit=0.5) phrase = Buffer(feedback=0) motor = Motor() memory = Buffer(pstc_feedback=0.1) flow = Flow( action->actionC object->objectC actionC*1.1->action objectC*1.1->object action*ACTION->phrase object*OBJECT->phrase vision.WRITE->category.ACTION vision.REMEMBER->category.ACTION vision.ONE->category.OBJECT vision.TWO->category.OBJECT vision.THREE->category.OBJECT vision.NUMBER->category.OBJECT BG=BasalGanglia(Rules()) thal=Thalamus(BG) Figure 1: A script (top) to generate a model with 48,000 spiking neurons (bottom left) capable of simple cognitive behaviour (bottom right)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science SocietySame topicAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingFrench-language works237,207