Neural Comp. NEW Faster Access
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
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
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, K. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miller, K. D.

Neural Computation, Vol 10, 529-547, Copyright © 1998 by The MIT Press

NOTES

Equivalence of a Sprouting-And-Retraction Model and Correlation-Based Plasticity Models of Neural Development

Kenneth D. Miller

A simple model of correlation-based synaptic plasticity via axonal sprouting and retraction (Elliott, Howarth, & Shadbolt, 1996a) is shown to be equivalent to the class of correlation-based models (Miller, Keller, & Stryker, 1989), although these were formulated in terms of weight modification of anatomically fixed synapses. Both models maximize the same measure of synaptic correlation, subject to certain constraints on connectivity. Thus, the analyses of the correlation-based models suffice to characterize the behavior of the sprouting-and-retraction model. More detailed models are needed for theoretical distinctions to be drawn between plasticity via sprouting and retraction, weight modification, or a combination. The model of Elliott et al. involves stochastic search through allowed weight patterns for those that improve correlations. That of Miller et al. instead follows dynamical equations that determine continuous changes of the weights that improve correlations. The identity of these two approaches is shown to depend on the use of subtractive constraint enforcement in the models of Miller et al. More generally, to model the idea that neural development acts to maximize some measure of correlation subject to a constraint on the summed synaptic weight, the constraint must be enforced subtractively in a dynamical model.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
B. S. Blais, H. Z. Shouval, and L. N. Cooper
The role of presynaptic activity in monocular deprivation: Comparison of homosynaptic and heterosynaptic mechanisms
PNAS, February 2, 1999; 96(3): 1083 - 1087.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurosci.Home page
E. Erwin and K. D. Miller
Correlation-Based Development of Ocularly Matched Orientation and Ocular Dominance Maps: Determination of Required Input Activities
J. Neurosci., December 1, 1998; 18(23): 9870 - 9895.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
J COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE NEURAL COMPUTATION MIT PRESS JOURNALS
Copyright © 1998 by The MIT Press.