A Computational Study of the Role of Neurogenesis in Learning and Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurogenesis persists throughout life in the dentate gyrus of the mammalian hippocampus. There is a large body of evidence that neurogenesis may impact cognition, particularly concerning learning and memory, though it is unclear what mechanisms underlie these processes. Computational models have established that the addition of neurons degrades existing memories (i.e., produces forgetting). These predictions are supported by empirical observations in rodents, where post-training increases in neurogenesis also promote forgetting of hippocampus-dependent memories. However, in these models that use 10-1,000 neurons to represent the dentate gyrus, forgetting is only observed at new neuron addition rates that greatly exceed adult neurogenesis rates observed in vivo. To address this, we generated an artificial neural network that incorporated more realistic features of the hippocampus – including increased network size, sparse activity, and sparse connectivity and explored how these properties modulate the impact of using biologically relevant rates of neurogenesis in a pattern categorization task. Our model captures several mnemonic phenomena associated with neurogenesis, including forgetting and enhanced reversal learning. These effects were sensitive to changes in increased output connectivity and excitability of new neurons. Crucially, forgetting was observed at lower rates of neurogenesis in larger networks, with the addition of as little as 0.1% of the total DG population sufficient to induce forgetting. We also propose a role for neurogenesis in the generalization of memories using traditional deep learning architectures. At rates of 3% turnover, we found that neurogenesis alone improved generalization on unseen data in two commonly used categorization tasks, the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets. Together, we suggest not only that low rates of neurogenesis can have an impact on cognition, but that we can use biologically-inspired and artificial neural networks to investigate the computational functions of neurogenesis that may mirror those occurring in vivo as well.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".