BCI learning phenomena can be explained by gradient-based optimization
Humphreys, P. C.; Daie, K.; Svoboda, K.; Botvinick, M.; Lillicrap, T. P.
Show abstract
Brain-computer interface (BCI) experiments have shown that animals are able to adapt their recorded neural activity in order to receive reward. Recent studies have highlighted two phenomena. First, the speed at which a BCI task can be learned is dependent on how closely the required neural activity aligns with pre-existing activity patterns: learning "out-of-manifold" tasks is slower than "in-manifold" tasks. Second, learning happens by "re-association": the overall distribution of neural activity patterns does not change significantly during task learning. These phenomena have been presented as distinctive aspects of BCI learning. Here we show, using simulations and theoretical analysis, that both phenomena result from the simple assumption that behaviour and representations are improved via gradient-based algorithms. We invoke Occams Razor to suggest that this straightforward explanation should be preferred when accounting for these experimental observations.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating muscle activation from EMG using deep learning-based dynamical systems models 94%
- Unsupervised, piecewise linear decoding enables an accurate prediction of muscle activity in a multi-task brain computer interface 93%
- Event Detection and Classification from Multimodal Time Series with Application to Neural Data 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Efficient decoding of large-scale neural population responses with Gaussian-process multiclass regression 95%
- Probing the Structure and Functional Properties of the Dropout-induced Correlated Variability in Convolutional Neural Networks 95%
- Confidence-controlled Hebbian learning efficiently extracts category membership from stimuli encoded in view of a categorization task 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.