Predictive Coding Explains Asymmetric Connectivity in the Brain: A Neural Network Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seminal frameworks of predictive coding propose a hierarchy of generative modules, each attempting to infer the neural representation of the module one level below; the predictions are carried by top-down feedback projections, while the predictive error is propagated by reciprocal forward pathways. Such symmetric feedback connections support visual processing of noisy stimuli in computational models. However, neurophysiological studies have yielded evidence of asymmetric cortical feedback connections. We investigated the contribution of neural feedback in visual processing for computing grasp parameters, by utilizing convolutional neural network models that had been augmented with predictive feedback and were trained to compute grasp positions for real-world objects. After establishing an ameliorative effect of symmetric feedback on grasp detection performance when evaluated on noisy stimuli, we characterized the performance effects of asymmetric feedback, similar to that observed in the cortex. Specifically, we tested model variants extended with short -, medium -, long - and longer -range feedback connections (i) originating at the same source layer or (ii) terminating at the same target layer. We found that the performance-enhancing effect of predictive coding under adverse conditions was optimal for medium -range asymmetric feedback. Moreover, this effect was most prominent when medium -range feedback originated at a level of representational abstraction that was proximal to the input layer, in contrast to more distal layers. To conclude, our simulations show that introducing biologically realistic asymmetric predictive feedback improves model robustness to noisy visual stimuli in a neural network model optimized for grasp detection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".