ArticleBrain sciences2025
Research on Anti-Interference Performance of Spiking Neural Network Under Network Connection Damage.
Article in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the development of artificial intelligence, memristors have become an ideal choice to optimize new neural network architectures and improve computing efficiency and energy efficiency due to their combination of storage and computing power. In this context, spiking neural networks show the ability to resist Gaussian noise, spike interference, and AC electric field interference by adjusting synaptic plasticity. The anti-interference ability to spike neural networks has become an important direction of electromagnetic protection bionics research.
methodsTherefore, this research constructs two types of spiking neural network models with LIF model as nodes: VGG-SNN and FCNN-SNN, and combines pruning algorithm to simulate network connection damage during the training process. By comparing and analyzing the millimeter wave radar human motion dataset and MNIST dataset with traditional artificial neural networks, the anti-interference performance of spiking neural networks and traditional artificial neural networks under the same probability of edge loss was deeply explored.
resultsThe experimental results show that on the millimeter wave radar human motion dataset, the accuracy of the spiking neural network decreased by 5.83% at a sparsity of 30%, while the accuracy of the artificial neural network decreased by 18.71%. On the MNIST dataset, the accuracy of the spiking neural network decreased by 3.91% at a sparsity of 30%, while the artificial neural network decreased by 10.13%.
conclusionsTherefore, under the same network connection damage conditions, spiking neural networks exhibit unique anti-interference performance advantages. The performance of spiking neural networks in information processing and pattern recognition is relatively more stable and outstanding. Further analysis reveals that factors such as network structure, encoding method, and learning algorithm have a significant impact on the anti-interference performance of both.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.