Response latency has been suggested as a possible source of information in the central nervous system when fast decisions are required. The accuracy of latency codes was studied in the past using a simplified readout algorithm termed the temporal-winner-take-all (tWTA). The tWTA is a competitive readout algorithm in which populations of neurons with a similar decision preference compete, and the algorithm selects according to the preference of the population that reaches the decision threshold first. It has been shown that this algorithm can account for accurate decisions among a small number of alternatives during short biologically relevant time periods. However, one of the major points of criticism of latency codes has been that it is unclear how can such a readout be implemented by the central nervous system. Here we show that the solution to this long standing puzzle may be rather simple. We suggest a mechanism that is based on reciprocal inhibition architecture, similar to that of the conventional winner-take-all, and show that under a wide range of parameters this mechanism is sufficient to implement the tWTA algorithm. This is done by first analyzing a rate toy model, and demonstrating its ability to discriminate short latency differences between its inputs. We then study the sensitivity of this mechanism to fine-tuning of its initial conditions, and show that it is robust to wide range of noise levels in the initial conditions. These results are then generalized to a Hodgkin-Huxley type of neuron model, using numerical simulations. Latency codes have been criticized for requiring a reliable stimulus-onset detection mechanism as a reference for measuring latency. Here we show that this frequent assumption does not hold, and that, an additional onset estimator is not needed to trigger this simple tWTA mechanism.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,823,285
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#959
of 1,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,448
of 315,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#18
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
