MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4223655161 · doi:10.1101/2022.04.07.487582

Can neurogenesis act as a neural regularizer?

2022· preprint· en· W4223655161 on OpenAlexafffund
Lina Tran, Adam Santoro, Lulu Liu, Sheena A. Josselyn, Blake A. Richards, Paul W. Frankland

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityVector InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of TorontoMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteHospital for Sick Children
FundersVector InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsNeurogenesisDentate gyrusOverfittingSubgranular zoneComputer scienceHippocampal formationArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkNeuroscienceMachine learningNeural stem cellPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New neurons are continuously generated in the subgranular zone of the dentate gyrus throughout adulthood. These new neurons gradually integrate into hippocampal circuits, forming new naïve synapses. Viewed from this perspective, these new neurons may represent a significant source of ‘wiring’ noise in hippocampal networks. In machine learning, such noise injection is commonly used as a regularization technique. Regularization techniques help prevent overfitting training data, and allow models to generalize learning to new, unseen data. Using a computational modeling approach, here we ask whether a neurogenesis-like process similarly acts as a regularizer, facilitating generalization in a category learning task. In a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained on the CIFAR-10 object recognition dataset, we modeled neurogenesis as a replacement/turnover mechanism, where weights for a randomly chosen small subset of neurons in a chosen hidden layer were re-initialized to new values as the model learned to categorize 10 different classes of objects. We found that neurogenesis enhanced generalization on unseen test data compared to networks with no neurogenesis. Moreover, neurogenic networks either outperformed or performed similarly to networks with conventional noise injection (i.e., dropout, weight decay, and neural noise). These results suggest that neurogenesis can enhance generalization in hippocampal learning through noise-injection, expanding on the roles that neurogenesis may have in cognition. Author Summary In deep neural networks, various forms of noise injection are used as regularization techniques to prevent overfitting and promote generalization on unseen test data. Here, we were interested in whether adult neurogenesis– the lifelong production of new neurons in the hippocampus– might similarly function as a regularizer in the brain. We explored this question computationally, assessing whether implementing a neurogenesis-like process in a hidden layer within a convolutional neural network trained in a category learning task would prevent overfitting and promote generalization. We found that neurogenesis regularization was as least as effective as, or more effective than, conventional regularizers (i.e., dropout, weight decay and neural noise) in improving model performance. These results suggest that optimal levels of hippocampal neurogenesis may improve memory-guided decision making by preventing overfitting, thereby promoting the formation of more generalized memories that can be applied in a broader range of circumstances. We outline how these predictions may be evaluated behaviorally in rodents with altered hippocampal neurogenesis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms→French-language works237,207→