Hi Steve,
Inhibition appears in three places in the biological theory of CLA, at least
in my head!  We haven't always pointed it out because it isn't necessarily
useful to think of inhibitory neurons when implementing the CLA in software.
The literature on inhibitory neurons is not as rich as it is for excitatory
neurons so it is harder to be precise on this.  

1) There are inhibitory neurons that enforce sparsity. (used to enforce
sparsity)
2) There are inhibitory neurons that help all the cells in a column be
activated together (these inhibitory cells inhibit other inhibitory cells in
a column).  This shows up in the software by having a column of cells
activated by the SP.
3) There are inhibitory neurons that form inhibitory synapses along the
distal dendrites.  I speculate that these regulate the dendrite activation
threshold of the dendrite branches, and therefore control the sparseness of
the temporal pooler.  If not enough cells are pooling then the threshold
would be lowered.  We have never implemented or tested this idea.  I imagine
that when you look at a cloud and I say  "do you see the dog", your cortex
lowers the threshold of the dendrites to encourage the cortex to recognize
anything and hopefully see the dog shaped cloud.

There are six or so different types of inhibitory neurons in cortex so the
situation is undoubtedly more complex.

As far as I know all the cells that enter the white matter are excitatory.
So the feedback projections from one region to another are excitatory.   The
general consensus is feedback axons form excitatory synapses on the apical
dendrites of cells in layers 2,3, and 5.  There still could be an inhibitory
effect but it would be secondary.

We have not implemented feedback in a hierarchy other than some simple
experiments before we had the CLA.

What I think is happening is a higher-level representation projects to lower
regions and associatively links to it.  In this  way the higher level region
can tell the lower level region what sequence of activity it should recall.
This would in effect eliminate alternate possibilities in the lower region.
Perhaps this addresses your concern

This would be much easier to discuss in person.
Jeff



-----Original Message-----
From: nupic [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven
Oberlin
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 10:15 AM
To: NuPIC general mailing list.
Subject: [nupic-dev] Inhibition and feedback

Re-reading the CLA whitepaper, one thing that I've noticed is that the only
place inhibition appears is in the enforcement of the spacial pooler's
columnar constraint of winners to encourage SDR encodings of input patterns.


When arranging HTM regions in a hierarchy, I assume (perhaps incorrectly)
that some of the feedback from higher-level HTMs to lower-level HTMs would
be inhibitory, to reduce the likelihood of activations that aren't being
predicted in the larger context of the higher level sequence being played
out by the higher-level HTM (if that makes any sense).  However, it seems to
me that it is not currently possible to provide an inhibitory input into an
HTM region because of the way input data is gated and summed by the spacial
pooler, i.e., there is no way to learn that active input bits (1's in the
input stream) mean recognition of a pattern should be suppressed.  

I suppose that feedback from higher-level to lower-level HTMs in a hierarchy
could be excitatory-only, i.e., "1's from above" are learned in the mix of
input bits by lower-levels to help gate predicted patterns, but then it
seems to me that we would need a lot of copies of each feedback bit to
multiply its semantic force so it could have a significant influence on the
activation sum being computed by the spacial pooler.  This seems
inefficient, though it makes use of existing learning mechanisms.  

How is hierarchical feedback intended or imagined to be accomplished?  Is
inhibition necessary?  Maybe feedback shouldn't even be injected along with
"ordinary" feed-forward input bits, should instead be a factor in individual
column boost calculations, or... 

Perhaps this is an out-of-scope topic.  Let me know if I'm off in the
weeds...

-Steve O.
_______________________________________________
nupic mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org


_______________________________________________
nupic mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org

Reply via email to