Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Action Editor: Liam Paninski
The code and the data related to this paper is available at http://rr.epfl.ch/paper/KSV2017
The connectivity of a neuronal network has a major effect on its functionality and role. It is generally believed that the complex network structure of the brain provides a physiological basis for information processing. Therefore, identifying the network’s topology has received a lot of attentions in neuroscience and has been the center of many research initiatives such as Human Connectome Project. Nevertheless, direct and invasive approaches that slice and observe the neural tissue have proven to be time consuming, complex and costly. As a result, the inverse methods that utilize firing activity of neurons in order to identify the (functional) connections have gained momentum recently, especially in light of rapid advances in recording technologies; It will soon be possible to simultaneously monitor the activities of tens of thousands of neurons in real time. While there are a number of excellent approaches that aim to identify the functional connections from firing activities, the scalability of the proposed techniques plays a major challenge in applying them on large-scale datasets of recorded firing activities. In exceptional cases where scalability has not been an issue, the theoretical performance guarantees are usually limited to a specific family of neurons or the type of firing activities. In this paper, we formulate the neural network reconstruction as an instance of a graph learning problem, where we observe the behavior of nodes/neurons (i.e., firing activities) and aim to find the links/connections. We develop a scalable learning mechanism and derive the conditions under which the estimated graph for a network of Leaky Integrate and Fire (LIf) neurons matches the true underlying synaptic connections. We then validate the performance of the algorithm using artificially generated data (for benchmarking) and real data recorded from multiple hippocampal areas in rats.
Bertotti, G., Velychko, D., Dodel, N., Keil, S., Wolansky, D., et al. (2014). A cmos-based sensor array for in-vitro neural tissue interfacing with 4225 recording sites and 1024 stimulation sites. In 2014 IEEE of Biomedical circuits and systems conference (bioCAS) (pp. 304–307): IEEE.
Dale, H. (1935). Pharmacology and nerve-endings. Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, 28(3), 319–332.
Gerhard, F., Kispersky, T., Gutierrez, G.J., Marder, E., Kramer, M., Eden, U. (2013). Successful reconstruction of a physiological circuit with known connectivity from spiking activity alone. PLoS Computational Biology, 9(7), e1003,138. CrossRef
Gerstner, W., & Kistler, W.M. (2002). Spiking neuron models: Single neurons, populations, plasticity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Goldstein, T., Studer, C., Baraniuk, R. (2014). A field guide to forward-backward splitting with a fasta implementation. arXiv: 14113406.
Hall, E.C., & Willett, R.M. (2016). Tracking dynamic point processes on networks. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(7), 4327–4346. CrossRef
Jaggi, M., Smith, V., Takác, M., Terhorst, J., Krishnan, S., Hofmann, T., Jordan, M.I. (2014). Communication-efficient distributed dual coordinate ascent. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 3068–3076).
Karbasi, A., Salavati, A.H., Vetterli, M. (2015). Learning network structures from firing patterns. In International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.
Khodagholy, D., Gelinas, J.N., Thesen, T., Doyle, W., Devinsky, O., Malliaras, G.G., Buzsáki, G. (2014). Neurogrid: recording action potentials from the surface of the brain. Nature neuroscience.
Kim, S., Putrino, D., Ghosh, S., Brown, E.N. (2011). A granger causality measure for point process models of ensemble neural spiking activity. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(3), e1001,110. CrossRef
Maass, W., & Schmitt, M. (1999). On the complexity of learning from spiking neurons with temporal coding. Information and Computation, 153(1), 26–46. CrossRef
Mishchenko, Y., Vogelstein, J.T., Paninski, L., et al. (2011). A “b”ayesian approach for inferring neuronal connectivity from calcium fluorescent imaging data. Annals of Applied Statistics, 5(2B), 1229–1261. CrossRef
Mizuseki, K., Sirota, A., Pastalkova, E., Diba, K., Buzski, G. (2013). Multiple single unit recordings from different rat hippocampal and entorhinal regions while the animals were performing multiple behavioral tasks. CRCNS org.
Moore, M., & Davenport, M. (2015). Learning network structure via hawkes processes. In Proceedings of the Work Signal Processing with Adaptive Sparse Structured Representations (SPARS).
Paninski, L. (2004). Maximum likelihood estimation of cascade point-process neural encoding models. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 15(4), 243–262. CrossRef
Perin, R., Berger, T.K., Markram, H. (2011). A synaptic organizing principle for cortical neuronal groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(13), 5419–5424. CrossRef
Pillow, J.W., & Simoncelli, E.P. (2003). Biases in white noise analysis due to non-poisson spike generation. Neurocomputing, 52, 109–115. CrossRef
Schur, J. (1911). Bemerkungen zur theorie der beschrankten bilinearformen mit unendlich vielen veranderlichen. Journal fur die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, 140, 1–28.
Soudry, D., Keshri, S., Stinson, P., Oh, M H, Iyengar, G., Paninski, L. (2015). Efficient shotgun inference of neural connectivity from highly sub-sampled activity data. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(10), e1004,464. CrossRef
Van Bussel, F., Kriener, B., Timme, M. (2011). Inferring synaptic connectivity from spatio-temporal spike patterns. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 5.
Wright, S.J., Nowak, R.D., Figueiredo, M.A. (2009). Sparse reconstruction by separable approximation. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 57(7), 2479–2493. CrossRef
- Learning neural connectivity from firing activity: efficient algorithms with provable guarantees on topology
Amir Hesam Salavati
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA