Combining Sampling Methods with Attractor Dynamics in Spiking Models of Head-Direction Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of the natural environment, requiring the brain to infer and integrate noisy signals to guide behavior effectively. Sampling-based inference has been proposed as a mechanism for dealing with uncertainty, particularly in early sensory processing. However, it is unclear how to reconcile sampling-based methods with operational principles of higher-order brain areas, such as attractor dynamics of persistent neural representations. In this study, we present a spiking neural network model for the head-direction (HD) system that combines sampling-based inference with attractor dynamics. To achieve this, we derive the required spiking neural network dynamics and interactions to perform sampling from a large family of probability distributions-including variables encoded with Poisson noise. We then propose a method that allows the network to update its estimate of the current head direction by integrating angular velocity samples-derived from noisy inputs-with a pull towards a circular manifold, thereby maintaining consistent attractor dynamics. This model makes specific, testable predictions about the HD system that can be examined in future neurophysiological experiments: it predicts correlated subthreshold voltage fluctuations; distinctive short- and long-term firing correlations among neurons; and characteristic statistics of the movement of the neural activity "bump" representing the head direction. Overall, our approach extends previous theories on probabilistic sampling with spiking neurons, offers a novel perspective on the computations responsible for orientation and navigation, and supports the hypothesis that sampling-based methods can be combined with attractor dynamics to provide a viable framework for studying neural dynamics across the brain.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".