↓ Skip to main content

Olfactory Sensor Processing in Neural Networks: Lessons from Modeling the Fruit Fly Antennal Lobe

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroengineering, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Olfactory Sensor Processing in Neural Networks: Lessons from Modeling the Fruit Fly Antennal Lobe
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroengineering, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fneng.2012.00002
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Henning Proske, Marco Wittmann, C. Giovanni Galizia

Abstract

The insect olfactory system can be a model for artificial olfactory devices. In particular, Drosophila melanogaster due to its genetic tractability has yielded much information about the design and function of such systems in biology. In this study we investigate possible network topologies to separate representations of odors in the primary olfactory neuropil, the antennal lobe. In particular we compare networks based on stochastic and homogeneous connection weight distributions to connectivities that are based on the input correlations between the glomeruli in the antennal lobe. We show that moderate homogeneous inhibition implements a soft winner-take-all mechanism when paired with realistic input from a large meta-database of odor responses in receptor cells (DoOR database). The sparseness of representations increases with stronger inhibition. Excitation, on the other hand, pushes the representation of odors closer together thus making them harder to distinguish. We further analyze the relationship between different inhibitory network topologies and the properties of the receptor responses to different odors. We show that realistic input from the DoOR database has a relatively high entropy of activation values over all odors and receptors compared to the theoretical maximum. Furthermore, under conditions in which the information in the input is artificially decreased, networks with heterogeneous topologies based on the similarity of glomerular response profiles perform best. These results indicate that in order to arrive at the most beneficial representation for odor discrimination it is important to finely tune the strength of inhibition in combination with taking into account the properties of the available sensors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 4%
Netherlands 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Kenya 1 2%
Greece 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 44 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 31%
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 31%
Neuroscience 14 27%
Engineering 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 9 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 February 2012.
All research outputs
#16,313,218
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroengineering
#44
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,200
of 251,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroengineering
#7
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 251,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.