JN Ad Instruments
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (June 4, 2008). doi:10.1152/jn.00013.2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Materials
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/2/1067    most recent
00013.2008v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Witten, I. B
Right arrow Articles by Sompolinsky, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Witten, I. B
Right arrow Articles by Sompolinsky, H.
Submitted on January 6, 2008
Accepted on June 4, 2008

A Hebbian learning rule mediates asymmetric plasticity in aligning sensory representations

Ilana B Witten1*, Eric I Knudsen1, and Haim Sompolinsky2

1 Neurobiology, Stanford University, 94305, California, United States
2 Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: iwitten{at}stanford.edu.

In the brain, mutual spatial alignment across different sensory representations can be shaped and maintained through plasticity. Here, we use a Hebbian model to account for the synaptic plasticity that results from a displacement of the space representation for one input channel relative to that of another, when the synapses from both channels are equally plastic. Surprisingly, although the synaptic weights for the two channels obeyed the same Hebbian learning rule, the amount of plasticity exhibited by the respective channels was highly asymmetric and depended on the relative strength and width of the receptive fields (RFs): the channel with the weaker or broader RFs always exhibited most or all of the plasticity. A fundamental difference between our Hebbian model and most previous models is that in our model synaptic weights were normalized separately for each input channel, insuring that the circuit would respond to both sensory inputs. The model produced three distinct regimes of plasticity dynamics (winner-take-all, mixed-shift and no-shift), with the transition between the regimes depending on the size of the spatial displacement and the degree of correlation between the sensory channels. In agreement with experimental observations, plasticity was enhanced by the accumulation of incremental adaptive adjustments to a sequence of small displacements. These same principles would apply not only to the maintenance of spatial registry across input channels, but also to the experience-dependent emergence of aligned representations in developing circuits.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
J. F. Bergan and E. I. Knudsen
Visual Modulation of Auditory Responses in the Owl Inferior Colliculus
J Neurophysiol, June 1, 2009; 101(6): 2924 - 2933.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the The American Physiological Society.