↓ Skip to main content

Performance Comparison of the Digital Neuromorphic Hardware SpiNNaker and the Neural Network Simulation Software NEST for a Full-Scale Cortical Microcircuit Model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
48 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Performance Comparison of the Digital Neuromorphic Hardware SpiNNaker and the Neural Network Simulation Software NEST for a Full-Scale Cortical Microcircuit Model
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00291
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sacha J. van Albada, Andrew G. Rowley, Johanna Senk, Michael Hopkins, Maximilian Schmidt, Alan B. Stokes, David R. Lester, Markus Diesmann, Steve B. Furber

Abstract

The digital neuromorphic hardware SpiNNaker has been developed with the aim of enabling large-scale neural network simulations in real time and with low power consumption. Real-time performance is achieved with 1 ms integration time steps, and thus applies to neural networks for which faster time scales of the dynamics can be neglected. By slowing down the simulation, shorter integration time steps and hence faster time scales, which are often biologically relevant, can be incorporated. We here describe the first full-scale simulations of a cortical microcircuit with biological time scales on SpiNNaker. Since about half the synapses onto the neurons arise within the microcircuit, larger cortical circuits have only moderately more synapses per neuron. Therefore, the full-scale microcircuit paves the way for simulating cortical circuits of arbitrary size. With approximately 80, 000 neurons and 0.3 billion synapses, this model is the largest simulated on SpiNNaker to date. The scale-up is enabled by recent developments in the SpiNNaker software stack that allow simulations to be spread across multiple boards. Comparison with simulations using the NEST software on a high-performance cluster shows that both simulators can reach a similar accuracy, despite the fixed-point arithmetic of SpiNNaker, demonstrating the usability of SpiNNaker for computational neuroscience applications with biological time scales and large network size. The runtime and power consumption are also assessed for both simulators on the example of the cortical microcircuit model. To obtain an accuracy similar to that of NEST with 0.1 ms time steps, SpiNNaker requires a slowdown factor of around 20 compared to real time. The runtime for NEST saturates around 3 times real time using hybrid parallelization with MPI and multi-threading. However, achieving this runtime comes at the cost of increased power and energy consumption. The lowest total energy consumption for NEST is reached at around 144 parallel threads and 4.6 times slowdown. At this setting, NEST and SpiNNaker have a comparable energy consumption per synaptic event. Our results widen the application domain of SpiNNaker and help guide its development, showing that further optimizations such as synapse-centric network representation are necessary to enable real-time simulation of large biological neural networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 20%
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 8 5%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 24 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 30 20%
Engineering 29 19%
Neuroscience 28 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Physics and Astronomy 8 5%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 30 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 154. 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 23 July 2020.
All research outputs
#280,547
of 26,315,660 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#125
of 11,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,973
of 347,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,315,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 347,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.