The Attentional Routing Circuit: Receptive Field Modulation Through Nonlinear Dendritic Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a model of attentional routing called the Attentional Routing Circuit (ARC) that extends an existing model of spiking neurons with dendritic nonlinearities. Specifically, we employ the Poirazi et al. (2003) pyramidal neuron in a population coding framework. ARC demonstrates that the dendritic nonlinearities can be exploited to result in selective routing, with a decrease in the number of cells needed by a factor of ~5 as compared with a linear dendrite model.Routing of attended information occurs through the modulation of feedforward visual signals by a cortical control signal specifying the location and size of the attended target. The model is fully specified in spiking single cells. Our approach differs from past work on shifter circuits by having more efficient control, and using a more biologically detailed substrate. Our approach differs from existing models that use gain fields by providing precise hypotheses about how the control signals are generated and distributed in a hierarchical model in spiking neurons. Further, the model accounts for numerous experimental findings regarding the timing, strength and extent of attentional modulation in ventral stream areas, and the perceived contrast enhancement of attended stimuli.To further demonstrate the plausibility of ARC, it is applied to the attention experiments of Womelsdorf et al. (2008) and tested in detail. For the simulations, the model has only two free parameters that influence its ability to match the experimental data, and without fitting, we show that it can account for the experimental observations of changes in receptive field (RF) gain and position with attention in macaques. In sum, the model provides an explanation of RF modulation as well as testable predictions about nonlinear cortical dendrites and attentional changes of receptive field properties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".