Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39739908›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Biologically plausible gated recurrent neural networks for working memory and learning-to-learn.

Alexandra R van den Berg, Pieter R Roelfsema, Sander M Bohte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexandra R van den BergMachine Learning Group, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3619-3786
Pieter R RoelfsemaDepartment of Vision & Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1625-0034
Sander M BohteMachine Learning Group, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7866-278X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The acquisition of knowledge and skills does not occur in isolation but learning experiences amalgamate within and across domains. The process through which learning can accelerate over time is referred to as learning-to-learn or meta-learning. While meta-learning can be implemented in recurrent neural networks, these networks tend to be trained with architectures that are not easily interpretable or mappable to the brain and with learning rules that are biologically implausible. Specifically, these rules have often employed backpropagation-through-time, which relies on information that is unavailable at synapses that are undergoing plasticity in the brain. Previous studies that exclusively used local information for their weight updates had a limited capacity to integrate information over long timespans and could not easily learn-to-learn. Here, we propose a novel gated memory network named RECOLLECT, which can flexibly retain or forget information by means of a single memory gate and is trained with a biologically plausible trial-and-error-learning that requires only local information. We demonstrate that RECOLLECT successfully learns to represent task-relevant information over increasingly long memory delays in a pro-/anti-saccade task, and that it learns to flush its memory at the end of a trial. Moreover, we show that RECOLLECT can learn-to-learn an effective policy on a reversal bandit task. Finally, we show that the solutions acquired by RECOLLECT resemble how animals learn similar tasks.

Indexed as

LearningMemory, Short-TermNeural Networks, ComputerAnimalsBrainHumansModels, NeurologicalNerve Net

Identifiers

PMID39739908
PMCPMC11687930

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.