<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
pmid: 33707754
pmc: PMC7617048
Learning, especially rapid learning, is critical for survival. However, learning is hard: a large number of synaptic weights must be set based on noisy, often ambiguous, sensory information. In such a high-noise regime, keeping track of probability distributions over weights is the optimal strategy. Here we hypothesize that synapses take that strategy; in essence, when they estimate weights, they include error bars. They then use that uncertainty to adjust their learning rates, with more uncertain weights having higher learning rates. We also make a second, independent, hypothesis: synapses communicate their uncertainty by linking it to variability in PSP size, with more uncertainty leading to more variability. These two hypotheses cast synaptic plasticity as a problem of Bayesian inference, and thus provide a normative view of learning. They generalize known learning rules, offer an explanation for the large variability in the size of post-synaptic potentials, and make falsifiable experimental predictions.
Published in Nature Neuroscience: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-021-00809-5
Neurons, Neuronal Plasticity, Models, Neurological, Brain, Bayes Theorem, Learning algorithms, Synaptic plasticity, Article, Quantitative Biology - Neurons and Cognition, FOS: Biological sciences, Animals, Humans, Learning, Neurons and Cognition (q-bio.NC), Algorithms
Neurons, Neuronal Plasticity, Models, Neurological, Brain, Bayes Theorem, Learning algorithms, Synaptic plasticity, Article, Quantitative Biology - Neurons and Cognition, FOS: Biological sciences, Animals, Humans, Learning, Neurons and Cognition (q-bio.NC), Algorithms
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 79 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |