MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169045410 · doi:10.1111/tops.12536

Connecting Biological Detail With Neural Computation: Application to the Cerebellar Granule–Golgi Microcircuit

2021· article· en· W3169045410 on OpenAlexafffund
Andreas Stöckel, Terrence C. Stewart, Chris Eliasmith

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Cognitive Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsEyeblink conditioningNeurophysiologyComputer scienceNeuroscienceCognitionNeuroanatomyArtificial intelligenceCognitive scienceComputational modelClassical conditioningConditioningPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurophysiology and neuroanatomy constrain the set of possible computations that can be performed in a brain circuit. While detailed data on brain microcircuits is sometimes available, cognitive modelers are seldom in a position to take these constraints into account. One reason for this is the intrinsic complexity of accounting for biological mechanisms when describing cognitive function. In this paper, we present multiple extensions to the neural engineering framework (NEF), which simplify the integration of low-level constraints such as Dale's principle and spatially constrained connectivity into high-level, functional models. We focus on a model of eyeblink conditioning in the cerebellum, and, in particular, on systematically constructing temporal representations in the recurrent granule-Golgi microcircuit. We analyze how biological constraints impact these representations and demonstrate that our overall model is capable of reproducing key properties of eyeblink conditioning. Furthermore, since our techniques facilitate variation of neurophysiological parameters, we gain insights into why certain neurophysiological parameters may be as observed in nature. While eyeblink conditioning is a somewhat primitive form of learning, we argue that the same methods apply for more cognitive models as well. We implemented our extensions to the NEF in an open-source software library named "NengoBio" and hope that this work inspires similar attempts to bridge low-level biological detail and high-level function.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Cognitive ScienceSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207