{"title": "Efficient Spike-Coding with Multiplicative Adaptation in a Spike Response Model", "book": "Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems", "page_first": 1835, "page_last": 1843, "abstract": "Neural adaptation underlies the ability of neurons to maximize encoded information over a wide dynamic range of input stimuli. While adaptation is an intrinsic feature of neuronal models like the Hodgkin-Huxley model, the challenge is to integrate adaptation in models of neural computation.  Recent computational models like the Adaptive Spike Response Model implement adaptation as spike-based addition of fixed-size fast spike-triggered threshold dynamics and slow spike-triggered currents. Such adaptation has been shown to accurately model neural spiking behavior over a limited dynamic range. Taking a cue from kinetic models of adaptation, we propose a multiplicative Adaptive Spike Response Model where the spike-triggered adaptation dynamics are scaled multiplicatively by the adaptation state at the time of spiking. We show that unlike the additive adaptation model, the firing rate in the multiplicative adaptation model saturates to a maximum spike-rate. When simulating variance switching experiments, the model also quantitatively fits the experimental data over a wide dynamic range. Furthermore, dynamic threshold models of adaptation suggest a straightforward interpretation of neural activity in terms of dynamic signal encoding with shifted and weighted exponential kernels. We show that when thus encoding rectified filtered stimulus signals, the multiplicative Adaptive Spike Response Model achieves a high coding efficiency and maintains this efficiency over changes in the dynamic signal range of several orders of magnitude, without changing model parameters.", "full_text": "Ef\ufb01cient Spike-Coding with Multiplicative\n\nAdaptation in a Spike Response Model\n\nSander M. Bohte\nCWI, Life Sciences\n\nAmsterdam, The Netherlands\n\nS.M.Bohte@cwi.nl\n\nAbstract\n\nNeural adaptation underlies the ability of neurons to maximize encoded informa-\ntion over a wide dynamic range of input stimuli. Recent spiking neuron mod-\nels like the adaptive Spike Response Model implement adaptation as additive\n\ufb01xed-size fast spike-triggered threshold dynamics and slow spike-triggered cur-\nrents. Such adaptation accurately models neural spiking behavior over a limited\ndynamic input range. To extend ef\ufb01cient coding over large changes in dynamic in-\nput range, we propose a multiplicative adaptive Spike Response Model where the\nspike-triggered adaptation dynamics are scaled multiplicatively by the adaptation\nstate at the time of spiking. We show that, unlike the additive adaptation model,\nthe \ufb01ring rate in our multiplicative adaptation model saturates to a realistic max-\nimum spike-rate regardless of input magnitude. Additionally, when simulating\nvariance switching experiments, the model quantitatively \ufb01ts experimental data\nover a wide dynamic range. Dynamic threshold models of adaptation furthermore\nsuggest a straightforward interpretation of neural activity in terms of dynamic dif-\nferential signal encoding with shifted and weighted exponential kernels. We show\nthat when thus encoding recti\ufb01ed \ufb01ltered stimulus signals, the multiplicative adap-\ntive Spike Response Model achieves a high coding ef\ufb01ciency and maintains this\nef\ufb01ciency over changes in the dynamic signal range of several orders of magni-\ntude, without changing model parameters.\n\n1\n\nIntroduction\n\nThe ability of neurons to adapt their responses to greatly varying sensory signal statistics is central\nto ef\ufb01cient neural coding [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Consequently, accurate models for the underlying\nmechanisms can provide insight into the nature of neural coding itself. For this, models of neural\ncomputation have to account for adaptation in a manner consistent with both experimental \ufb01ndings\nand notions of ef\ufb01cient neural coding.\nNeural computation is often reduced to a linear-nonlinear-poisson (LNP) model: input signals are\n\ufb01ltered, followed by a thresholding function that determines the \ufb01ring probability of the neuron. In\nthe Generalized Linear Model (GLM) [8] a refractory response in the form of a post-spike \ufb01lter is\nadded (\ufb01gure 1). With experimental responses \ufb01tted to such LNP models, adaptation is found to\nadjust both the effective gain in the thresholding function and the linear \ufb01ltering function [9, 10].\nNeural adaptation responds primarily to changes in local stimulus contrast or, equivalently, to the\nlocal detection threshold [11, 12], and a number of theoretical studies account for adaptation from\nthe perspective of optimal contrast estimation [12, 13]. Recent work by Ozuysal & Baccus [14]\nsuggests that in a Linear-Nonlinear \ufb01rst-order Kinetics model (LNK), the gain depends on the local\ncontrast of the \ufb01ltered and recti\ufb01ed input signal.\n\n1\n\n\fFigure 1: Generalized Linear Model (GLM) of neural computation.\n\nWith substantial spike-rate adaptation occurring on a time scale of just tens of milliseconds [4, 5],\nadapting neurons necessarily generate at most tens of spikes in that period. From an adaptive coding\nperspective, this implies that for a neuron\u2019s adaptation to be computable by downstream neurons,\nthe adaptation effects have to be derivable from just the emitted spike-train. Spike-based models are\nthus central when accounting for adaptation as adaptive neural coding.\nIn variations of adaptive integrate-and-\ufb01re neurons [15, 16, 17], adaptation can be incorporated as\na combination of two mechanisms: spike-triggered adaptation currents and a dynamical action-\npotential threshold. In such models, the adaptation mechanisms together increase the distance be-\ntween the reversal potential and the threshold, effectively changing the gain of the neuron. The\nadaptive Spike Response Model [16, 17] in particular has been shown to be effective for modeling\nneural behavior in response to input currents with limited dynamic range [17]. On longer timescales,\nspike-triggered adaptation currents \ufb01t a power-law decay rather than an exponential decay, linking\nto observations of long-range power-law rate-adaptation [18, 19, 20, 21, 17].\nStill, in spite of its success, the additive model of adaptation in adaptive Spike Response Model\neffectively changes neural gain with at most a \ufb01xed step-size, and thus cannot respond quickly to\nchanges in signal variance that are large compared to this step-size. In particular, Brette [22] argues\nthat adaptation modulation has to be multiplicative for neurons to respond with the same level of\nneural activity to drastic changes in dynamic range, as is observed experimentally (e.g. [4]).\nWe augment the adaptive Spike Response Model with multiplicative adaptation dynamics. We show\nthat such a multiplicative adaptive Spike Response Model quantitatively matches neural responses in\nvariance switching experiments and maximizes information transfer. Furthermore, we demonstrate\nthat the model\u2019s effective gain responds to changes in either mean or variance of the \ufb01ltered signal,\nsimilar to the LNK kinetic model in [14].\nIn the adaptive Spike Response Model, gain modulation derives from the difference between the\nadapted reversal potential and the dynamic threshold. This suggests a straightforward interpreta-\ntion of spike-trains in terms of threshold-based detection of discernible signal levels in the recti\ufb01ed\n\ufb01ltered input signal: adaptive spike-coding. We show how non-linear signal encoding with a multi-\nplicative adaptive Spike Response Model maintains a high coding ef\ufb01ciency for stimuli that vary in\nmagnitude over several orders of magnitude, unlike the additive version of the adaptive Spike Re-\nsponse Model. The coding ef\ufb01ciency is further comparable to the additive adaptive Spike Response\nModel when the adaptation step-size in the latter is optimized for the local dynamic range.\n\n2 Spike-rate Adaptation in the Spike Response Model\n\nWe follow Naud et al [17] in modeling adaptation in an augmented Spike-Response Model [23]. In\nthe adaptive Spike Response Model (aSRM), the dynamics of the (normalized) membrane-potential\nV (t) are described as a sum of integrated input current I(t) and spike-triggered currents \u03b7(t):\n\nV (t) =\n\n\u03c6(t \u2212 s)I(s)ds \u2212\n\n\u03c6(t \u2212 s)\n\n\u03b7(s \u2212 ti)ds,\n\n(1)\n\n(cid:90)\n\nwhere {ti} denotes the set of past emitted spikes, and the kernel \u03c6(t) is a fast exponential low-pass\n\ufb01lter on membrane currents:\n\n(cid:90)\n\n(cid:88)\n\n{ti}\n\n(cid:18)\u2212t\n\n(cid:19)\n\n,\n\n\u03c4m\n\n\u03c6(t) = \u03c60 exp\n\n2\n\nLinear (cid:31)lterSpikingNonlinearitypost-spike-(cid:31)lteroutputdelayinputg(t)s(t)u(t){t  }i\fwith \u03c4m determined by the membrane capacitance and conductance, and is typically on the order of\nseveral milliseconds [23, 17] .\nThe dynamical threshold is computed as the sum of a resting threshold V0 and spike-triggered thresh-\nold dynamics \u03b3(t):\n\nVT (t) = V0 +\n\n\u03b3(t \u2212 ti).\n\n(2)\n\n(cid:88)\n\n{ti}\n\nSpikes are generated either deterministically when V (t)\u2212 VT (t) becomes positive, or stochastically\nfollowing an inhomogeneous point process with conditional \ufb01ring rate:\n\n\u03bb(t|V (t), VT (t)) = \u03bb0 exp\n\n,\n\n(3)\n\n(cid:18) V (t) \u2212 VT (t)\n\n(cid:19)\n\n\u2206V\n\nwhere \u2206V determines the slope of the exponential function; small values of \u2206V approximate a\nneuron with a deterministic threshold. Naud et al [17] report that the threshold kernel \u03b3(t) is best\n\ufb01tted with an exponentially decaying function, whereas the shape of the spike-triggered current \u03b7(t)\ndepends on the type of neuron, and furthermore for longer timescales best \ufb01ts a decaying power-law:\n\u03b7(t \u2212 ti) \u221d (t \u2212 ti)\u2212\u03b2 for t >> ti, with \u03b2 \u2248 1.\nWe can denote the effective neural threshold \u03d1 as the amount of input that will trigger a spike. In\nthe adaptive Spike Response Model this amounts to the sum of the dynamic threshold, VT (t), and\n\nthe (\ufb01ltered) spike-triggered current: \u03d1 \u221d VT (t) +(cid:82) \u03c6(t \u2212 s)(cid:80){ti} \u03b7(s \u2212 ti)ds. We can move the\n\nreset response from (1) to the dynamic threshold (2) to obtain adaptation as the effective threshold\ndynamics \u03d1(t):\n\n\u03d1(t) = \u03d10 +\n\n\u03b3(t \u2212 ti) +\n\n\u03c6(t \u2212 s)\u03b7(s \u2212 ti)ds\n\n,\n\n(4)\n\n(cid:90)\n\n(cid:21)\n\n(cid:20)\n\n(cid:88)\n\n{ti}\n\nwhere \u03d10 = V0 denotes the effective threshold for an inactive neuron. As the adaptation dynamics\nin this model are strictly additive, we will refer to it further as the additive aSRM.\nThe maximum effective threshold in the additive aSRM is limited by the maximum number of spikes\nthat can be generated within the short time-window reported for variance adaptation. Effectively,\nthe refractory period determines the upper bound for the adaptation step-size, and adaptation speed\nis upper-bounded by this value times the number of generated spikes.\n\n2.1 Multiplicative Dynamic Adaptation\n\nWe propose a modi\ufb01cation of the additive aSRM where the effective spike-triggered adaptation is\nnot a \ufb01xed quantity but depends on the effective adaptation at the time of spiking. We include the\nmultiplicative interaction in the aSRM by scaling the effective adaptation in (4) with the current\nadaptation value at the time of spiking:\n\n\u03d1(t) = \u03d10 +\n\n\u03d1(ti)\n\n\u03b3(t \u2212 ti) +\n\n\u03c6(t \u2212 s)\u03b7(s \u2212 ti)ds\n\n.\n\n(5)\n\n(cid:20)\n\n(cid:88)\n\n{ti}\n\n(cid:90)\n\n(cid:21)\n\nFor sparse spiking and adaptation response kernels that decay fairly rapidly to zero, such multi-\nplicative adaptive threshold dynamics are approximately similar to the effective threshold dynamics\nin (4). For rapid signal variance transitions however, the multiplicative dynamics ensure that the\neffective threshold adaptation can rapidly range over multiple orders of magnitude.\nThe key difference in adaptation dynamics for the two aSRM models is illustrated in Figure 2. For\na given spike-train, the respective adaptation magnitudes are plotted in Figure 2a , and the neural\nresponses to different levels of step-size current injections are shown in Figure 2b. The additive\naSRM responds to an increasing input current with a \ufb01ring rate that is essentially only bounded\nby the refractory response; the \ufb01ring rate in the aSRM with multiplicative adaptation saturates at a\nmuch lower value as the effective threshold catches up with the magnitude of the injected current.\n2.2 Adaptive Spike-Coding\n\nThe interpretation of spike-triggered adaptation as dynamic neural gain in the Spike Response Model\nsuggests a straightforward application to a spike-based neural coding model. Spike-rate adaptation\n\n3\n\n\fFigure 2: Illustration of multiplicative and additive threshold adaptation dynamics. (a) Effective\nadaptation as a sum of threshold dynamics (solid lines) and spike-triggered currents (dashed lines)\ngiven an input spike-train (black dots). Red lines correspond to additive adaptation dynamics, blue\nlines to multiplicative. (b) Firing rate as a function of signal strength. Red solid line is response for\n(stochastic) additive aSRM, blue solid line for the stochastic multiplicative aSRM; dotted blue line\ncorresponds to a deterministic version of the multiplicative aSRM.\n\nhas been extensively studied from the point of view of optimal contrast estimation or signal threshold\ndetection [13, 12]. In particular the notion of signal threshold detection suggests a simple model\nwhere individual spikes signal that the neuron has detected that its internally computed value has\nreached a level distinguishable from the local noise level [11].\nTaking the standard Linear-Non-Linear model of neural computation, we follow Ozuysal & Baccus\n[14] in assuming that it is the recti\ufb01ed \ufb01ltered version of the stimulus signal, u(t), that is encoded\nby the spikes emitted by a neuron. We then de\ufb01ne the Linear-Non-Linear-Adaptive-Thresholding\n(LNL-AT) model as greedy differential signaling: if the signal u(t) exceeds a threshold value \u03d1(ti)\nat time ti, a spike is generated communicating a scaled response kernel \u03d1(ti)\u03ba(t\u2212ti) to downstream\nneurons. This response kernel is then also subtracted from the signal u(t), and the dynamic threshold\nis updated to account for threshold adaptation (\ufb01gure 3). In such greedy differential spike-coding,\nthe signal u(t) is effectively approximated as a sum of shifted and weighted response kernels:\n\n(cid:88)\n\n\u02c6u(t) =\n\n\u03d1(ti)\u03ba(t \u2212 ti).\n\n\ufb01ltered reset function(cid:82) \u03c6(t \u2212 s)\u03b7(t)ds is interpreted as a response kernel \u03ba(t \u2212 ti):\n\nThis adaptive spike-coding model corresponds to the multiplicative adaptive SRM in (5), where the\n\nti<t\n\n\u03d1(ti)\u03ba(t \u2212 ti),\n\n(6)\n\n(cid:90)\n\nV (t) =\n\n\u03c6(t \u2212 s)I(s)ds \u2212(cid:88)\n(cid:88)\n\n\u03d1(ti)\u03b3(t \u2212 ti),\n\nti<t\n\n= u(t) \u2212 \u02c6u(t),\n\n\u03d1(t) = \u03d10 +\n\n{ti}\n\nwhere spikes are generated when the membrane potential V (t) exceeds the dynamic threshold \u03d1(t).\nWe let the threshold kernel \u03b3(t) \ufb01t a decaying power-law \u03b3(t \u2212 ti) \u221d (t \u2212 ti)\u2212\u03b2, and, to take\nadvantage of temporal correlations, we model \u03ba(t) as an exponentially decaying kernel with time-\nconstant \u03c4\u03ba similar to the (average) correlation time of u(t), \u03ba(t) = exp(\u2212t/\u03c4\u03ba) [24] (note that\nequation (5) implies that interchanging the behavior of \u03b7(t) and \u03b3(t) does not change the SRM\nresponses). Difference based neural coding models for spike-based neural coding have been noted\nin the context of probabilistic coding [25], and fast visual coding [26].\nIn this adaptive spike-coding model, each spike ti communicates a signal amount of magnitude\n\u03d1(ti). In particular for signal ranges where the \ufb01ring rate saturates, the effective signal magnitude\nper spike grows linearly with signal size. This is depicted in \ufb01gure 4, for a neuron with a stochastic\n\n4\n\n010203040506070\u221220\u221210010203040  time (ms)E(cid:31)ective Adaptation Voltage(a)(b)910012345678020406080100120signalspike rate additive adaptationmultiplicative adaptationdeterministic thresholdspikesmultiplicative thresholdmultiplicative spike\u2212triggered currenteffective additive thresholdeffective multiplicative thresholdadditive thresholdadditive spike\u2212triggered current\fFigure 3: The Linear-Non-Linear-Adaptive-Thresholding (LNL-AT) model.\n\nthreshold (large \u2206V in (3); \ufb01gure 4a) and for a neuron with a deterministic threshold (small \u2206V\nin (3); \ufb01gure 4b). Plotted is the neural behavior in response to a range of step-size increases in the\nsignal u(t), where \ufb01ring rate and effective adapted threshold are measured two seconds after the\nstep-size signal increase. The average \ufb01ring rate shows the traditional saturation of neural response\nwith increasing signal size. However, the effective adapted threshold increases linearly with signal\nsize, paralleling the u = u signal identity.\n\nFigure 4: Effective adapted threshold \u03d1(ti) (right axis) and \ufb01ring rate (left axis) as a function of\nsignal size u (a) stochastic multiplicative aSRM; (b) deterministic multiplicative aSRM.\n\n3 Results\n\nWe demonstrate how the multiplicative aSRM quantitatively \ufb01ts with key \ufb01ndings on adaptation in\nexperimental data.\n\n3.1 Variance Switching\n\nThe neural responses to variance switching [4, 5] in sensory signals are considered central evidence\nfor the information maximizing effect of adaptation, and also demonstrate the fast timescale of (ini-\ntial) adaptation. In these key experiments, recordings are obtained from the blow\ufb02y\u2019s H1 neuron,\nand its responses are measured to a repeated change in perceived velocity variance. Signal variance\nis repeatedly scaled from \u03c31 to \u03c32 = 10 \u2217 \u03c31, with a cycle time T . As the cycle-time T is increased,\nthe effective time constant of adaptation grows (as measured by \ufb01tting an exponent on the initial\nsegment of the decaying curve). This time-constant of adaptation shows scale-free behavior: when\nnormalizing for the interval time T , the neural response curves overlap, and there is linear relation-\nship between cycle-time T and effective adaptation time constant \u03c4. As reported in [27], the additive\naSRM is only able to match these \ufb01ndings qualitatively for a limited change in variance.\nAs in [4, 5], we generated random white noise within an interval enclosed by [\u2212\u03c3i, \u03c3i], for different\nvalues of the variance \u03c3i (1 and 10 respectively). This signal was \ufb01ltered with \ufb01lters obtained by the\nGLM-model [8] on the original data from [4]. We fed the thus \ufb01ltered and recti\ufb01ed signal into the\nmultiplicative aSRM and optimized the model parameters using exhaustive line-search.\n\n5\n\nLinear (cid:31)lterSpikingNonlinearity(cid:31)lteroutputdelayinputpost-spike-012345678910signal urate  012345678910signal u0102030405060010203040506000101055ratearbitrary unitsarbitrary units  (a)(b)rateu = u1515\fThe optimized multiplicative aSRM exhibits both the same \ufb01ring behavior and the same relationship\nbetween normalized switching interval and normalized \ufb01ring rate as the experimental data in [5]\n(Figure 5b,c). Furthermore, characterizing the input-output relationship as in [5] recovers the same\noverlapping response-curves after normalizing the projected velocity signal for the scaled variance.\nThe \ufb01tted adaptation decay time-constant \u03c4 also closely matches the experimental data [5] (Figure\n5e, simulation: red circles, data: black circles). Changing the dynamic range for both \u03c31 and\n\u03c32 = 10 \u2217 \u03c31 by a factor of 10 did not change the relationship (green dots). We also characterized\nthe signal versus \ufb01ring rate response for three scaled versions of the same velocity signal, with\nscaling factors 1, 2 and 3, similar to [4] (open markers, Figure 5f). As in [4], the adapted signal-\nrate response curves also overlap after normalizing the signal for the scaled variance (solid markers,\nFigure 5f). Multiplicative effective adaptation thus maximizes the transmitted information as in\n[4, 5].\n\nFigure 5: Variance switching. (a) variance of sensory input is switched with a \ufb01xed cycle time.\n(b) The aSRM neuron adapts its \ufb01ring rate after each switch. Switching responses for different\ncycle times are overlapped. (c) The response curves for various cycle times overlap when time is\nnormalized for cycle time T . (d) Input-output relationship derived from 1-s-wide time windows in\nthe two signal variance conditions: left projected velocity signal s vs normalized \ufb01ring rate, right,\nprojected velocity signal s normalized by respective variance \u03c3. (e) Relationship between \ufb01tted\nadaptation timescale \u03c4 as a function of cycle time T . Red circles simulation data; black circles\nexperimental data from [5]. Green dots are simulation data for switching signals multiplied by a\nfactor 10.\n(f) Simulation response to signal scaled by factors \u03c31 = 1, \u03c32 = 2, \u03c33 = 3 (open\nmarkers), and responses rescaled by signal scale factor (solid markers). (g) Effective gain (1/\u03d1(t))\nin the multiplicative aSRM neuron as a function of contrast, for signal u with mean held constant\nand variance varied (blue line), and variance held constant and mean varied (green line). For the\nexperiments, resting threshold \u03d10 was set to 0.008, spike-triggered adaptation currents decayed with\na power-law constant of \u03b2 = 1.15, as 3.5(t \u2212 ti + 0.7)\u2212\u03b2 and response kernels as 2.5 exp(\u2212t/9)\n(time t in ms).\n\n6\n\n\u221210\u22128\u22126\u22124\u221220246810\u22121100101102projected velocity sFiring rate  \u22120.8\u22121\u22120.6\u22120.4\u22120.200.20.40.60.81Normalized stimulus s/\u03c3 101\u2212s segment of high contrast1\u2212s segment of low contrast0510152025303540Firing rate00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91Normalized time t/T(a)(b)(c)0Normalized rate\u22123\u22122\u22121012310203040506070051015202530354000.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.8Cycle time T (s)Timescale \u03c4 (s)experimental datasimulationsimulation x 10(e)(f)00.20.40.60.811.21.40102030405060signal sFiring rate  01234511.21.41.61.822.22.42.62.8contrastgain mean held constantstd dev held constant(d)(g)time (s)Normalized firing rate10\u22121100101102\fFigure 6: Multiplicative Spike-Coding: (a) illustration of stimulus encoding as a sum of shifted\nand weighted response kernels. Black dots denote spike-times, black solid line the signal u(t), and\nmagenta the approximated signal \u02c6u(t). (b) Computed coding ef\ufb01ciency. Information rate Rinfo was\ncomputed, with effective signal and noise bandwidth cutoff at 50Hz (matching the original stimulus\nsignal). Coding ef\ufb01ciency was computed by dividing Rinfo by the spike-train entropy rate S/T [28]\nfor a timing precision of 1 ms. Model parameters for the multiplicative aSRM are as in Figure 4.\nNote that for the grey and light-grey bars refer to the left, parameters are optimized for each \u03c3 value\nindividually.\n\nFor adaptation to relate to contrast, loosely de\ufb01ned as the ratio of (local) standard deviation \u03c3 and\nlocal average signal \u00afu, \u03c3/\u00afu (and thus detection threshold), it should respond accordingly to changes\nin not just variance but also in changes to mean (recti\ufb01ed) signal magnitude. Ozuysal & Baccus [14]\nshow that this property holds for their kinetic model of gain modulation, which also closely matches\nexperimental data. In the kinetic model, effective gain scales linearly with standard deviation when\nall other signal statistics are held constant, and similarly with 1/\u00afu; in simulations, where effective\ngain in computed as 1/\u03d1(t), we \ufb01nd that the multiplicative aSRM shares this property (Figure 5g).\n\n3.2 H1 encoding/decoding\n\nWith multiplicative effective adaptation responding to contrast changes, we can examine the effec-\ntiveness of the corresponding neural coding model. For this, we use the original blow\ufb02y data from\nBrenner et al [4], consisting of velocity stimulus pro\ufb01les presented to the blow\ufb02y, where the ve-\nlocity stimulus is scaled with factors of \u03c31 = 18\u25e6s\u22121, \u03c32 = 2\u03c31 = 36\u25e6s\u22121, \u03c33 = 90\u25e6s\u22121 and\n\u03c34 = 180\u25e6s\u22121. We examine how well multiplicative adaptive neural coding approximates the recti-\n\ufb01ed \ufb01ltered signal, as compared to such neural coding with the additive aSRM.\nWe \ufb01lter each version of this velocity stimulus with the \ufb01lter obtained using GLM optimization on\nthe velocity stimulus with variance \u03c31 and optimize the parameters in both aSRM models for condi-\ntion \u03c31, using deterministic thresholds. Adaptation was highly robust for the parameters, provided\nwe chose an exponential response kernel with time-constant 10ms to match the correlation time of\nthe \ufb01ltered signal. We further tuned the resting threshold \u03d10 and magnitude of the power-law adap-\ntation kernel \u03b3 so that the average \ufb01ring rate matched the experimental data at least for the \u03c31 signal.\nAn example of stimulus encoding with multiplicative adaptive neural coding is shown in \ufb01gure 6a.\nWe compare coding ef\ufb01ciency for the multiplicative aSRM and for the additive aSRM for a spike\nprecision of 1ms [28], applying the model optimized for condition \u03c31 to all four stimulus conditions\n\u03c31, \u03c32, \u03c33, \u03c34, and, for the multiplicative aSRM additionally for the conditions 50 \u00d7 \u03c31, 100 \u00d7\n\u03c31, 500\u00d7 \u03c31. Relative coding ef\ufb01ciencies are plotted in \ufb01gure 6b, black and white bars. We see that\nthe multiplicative aSRM maintains a high coding ef\ufb01ciency over the entire dynamic range, even for\nthe 500 \u00d7 \u03c31 stimulus condition. The dynamic range of the additive aSRM however is insuf\ufb01cient\nto encode the wide dynamic range of the original data. Similar to the experiment in [4], we \ufb01nd\n\n7\n\n50060070080090010001100120013001400150000.511.522.533.544.55time (ms)signal spikessignal u(t)estimated signal u(t) 01020304050607080 coding efficiency (%)multipl adaptationadd. adaptationscaled sum adaptationscaled fixed(a)(b)\fthat the \ufb01ring rate for the multiplicative aSRM signal encoding remains approximately stable for all\nstimulus conditions, with a \ufb01ring rate of 55 \u00b1 5 spikes/s, without changing any parameters. The\n\ufb01ring rate for the additive aSRM increases from a (matched) \ufb01ring rate of 55 spikes/s for the \u03c31\nstimulus, to over 180 spikes/s for the \u03c34 stimulus.\nWe also compare against the additive aSRM and neural coding with a non-adaptive, \ufb01xed response\nkernel SRM, with the magnitude of the response-kernel (equivalent to \u03d10) optimized for the local\nvariance such that for each stimulus, the \ufb01ring rate for these models matches that of the multiplicative\naSRM. This is shown in the light grey (scaled additive aSRM) and dark grey (scaled non-adaptive\nSRM) bars in \ufb01gure 6b. The coding ef\ufb01ciency for multiplicative aSRM is close to that of locally\nrescaled additive aSRM\u2019s, and exceeds locally rescaled non-adaptive coding.\n\n4 Discussion\n\nWe showed how a multiplicative model of neural adaptation in the Spike Response Model can ac-\ncount quantitatively for key experimental adaptation data. When interpreting the fast adaptation\ncomponent as the manifestation of a greedy signal encoding scheme, we further showed that multi-\nplicative adaptation allows the Spike Response Model to achieve high coding ef\ufb01ciency for signals\nwith dynamic ranges that change over several orders of magnitude, without changing parameters.\nJust as the H1 blow\ufb02y neuron, the multiplicative aSRM uses a near-constant \ufb01ring rate for the widely\nvarying dynamic range in the different stimulus conditions.\nThe ubiquity of adaptation in neural systems and notions of synaptic facilitation and depression\nsuggest that gain modulation could possibly be decoded in a receiving neuron by adaptively scaling\nthe size of the post-synaptic response. Although Series [29] argues that a number of visual percepts\nare consistent with decoding neurons being \u201cunaware\u201d of presynaptic adaptation, the presence or\nabsence of such coupled adaptation can be considered as a form of spectral \ufb01ltering [30]. As we\nhave shown, a key advantage of accounting for gain modulation in spike-based neural coding is\nthat it greatly extends the neuron\u2019s dynamic range, and may allow for instance implicit spike-based\nprobabilistic computation as in [31] to scale to multiple layers.\nFrom a biological perspective, it may seem implausible to let threshold dynamics and spike-triggered\nadaptation currents scale with vast changes in dynamic range. However, as noted in [17], there is a\ntheoretical link between spike-triggered plasticity like spike-timing dependent plasticity and spike-\ntriggered adaptation [32]. That is, scaling of synaptic weights could complement adaptation to\nlarge changes in dynamic range. The multiplicative adaptive Spike Response Model also captures\nonly part of the \ufb01rst-order dynamics in the LNK model in [14], and does not account for variance-\ndependent changes in temporal \ufb01ltering (e.g. [9]). Thus, spike-based adaptation of the response\nkernel could likely further improve the coding ef\ufb01ciency.\nThe multiplicative adaptive Spike Response Model provides a spike-based account for gain mod-\nulation, which can easily be reconstructed by post-synaptic neurons as a function of the received\nspike-train. It thus provides an effective neuron model for dynamical spiking neural networks, re-\nsolving for instance stability problems in spiking reservoir computing approaches.\nAcknowledgement. The author thanks Hao Wang for assistance with the simulations, and Jaldert\nRombouts, Kausik Lakshminarasimhan and Hao Wang for helpful suggestions.\n\nReferences\n[1] S B Laughlin. The role of sensory adaptation in the retina. The Journal of experimental biology, 146:39\u2013\n\n62, September 1989.\n\n[2] S.M. Smirnakis, M.J. Berry, D.K. Warland, W. Bialek, and M. Meister. Adaptation of retinal processing\n\nto image contrast and spatial scale. Nature, 386(6620):69\u201373, 1997.\n\n[3] M.J. Wainwright. Visual adaptation as optimal information transmission. Vision Research, 39(23):3960\u2013\n\n3974, 1999.\n\n[4] N. Brenner, W. Bialek, and R. de Ruyter van Steveninck. Adaptive rescaling maximizes information\n\ntransmission. Neuron, 26(3):695\u2013702, 2000.\n\n[5] A.L. Fairhall, G.D. Lewen, W. Bialek, and R.R. de Ruyter van Steveninck. Ef\ufb01ciency and ambiguity in\n\nan adaptive neural code. Nature, 412(6849):787\u2013792, 2001.\n\n8\n\n\f[6] O Schwartz and E P Simoncelli. Natural signal statistics and sensory gain control. Nature Neuroscience,\n\n4(8):819\u201325, 2001.\n\n[7] T. Hosoya, S.A. Baccus, and M. Meister. Dynamic predictive coding by the retina. Nature, 436(7047):71\u2013\n\n77, 2005.\n\n[8] J.W. Pillow, L. Paninski, V.J. Uzzell, E.P. Simoncelli, and E.J. Chichilnisky. Prediction and decod-\nJournal of Neuroscience,\n\ning of retinal ganglion cell responses with a probabilistic spiking model.\n25(47):11003\u201313, 2005.\n\n[9] S. Baccus and M. Meister. Fast and slow contrast adaptation in retinal circuitry. Neuron, 36(5):909\u201319,\n\n2002.\n\n[10] S. Hong, B.N. Lundstrom, and A.L. Fairhall. Intrinsic gain modulation and adaptive neural coding. PLoS\n\nComputational Biology, 4(7), 2008.\n\n[11] H P Snippe and J H van Hateren. Recovery from contrast adaptation matches ideal-observer predictions.\nJournal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision, 20(7):1321\u20131330, 2003.\n[12] H P Snippe, L Poot, and J H Van Hateren. Asymmetric dynamics of adaptation after onset and offset of\n\n\ufb02icker. Journal of Vision, pages 1\u201312, 2004.\n\n[13] M. DeWeese and A. Zador. Asymmetric dynamics in optimal variance adaptation. Neural Comp,\n\n10(5):1179\u20131202, 1998.\n\n[14] Y. Ozuysal and S.A. Baccus. Linking the Computational Structure of Variance Adaptation to Biophysical\n\nMechanisms. Neuron, 73(5):1002\u20131015, March 2012.\n\n[15] R Harris, D C O\u2019Carroll, and S B Laughlin. Contrast gain reduction in \ufb02y motion adaptation. Neuron,\n\n28(2):595\u2013606, 2000.\n\n[16] R. Jolivet, A. Rauch, H.R. L\u00a8uscher, and W. Gerstner. Predicting spike timing of neocortical pyramidal\n\nneurons by simple threshold models. Journal of computational neuroscience, 21(1):35\u201349, 2006.\n\n[17] R Naud. The Dynamics of Adapting Neurons. PhD thesis, EPFL Lausanne, 2011.\n[18] P.J. Drew and LF Abbott. Models and properties of power-law adaptation in neural systems. Journal of\n\nneurophysiology, 96(2):826, 2006.\n\n[19] Z. Xu, JR Payne, and ME Nelson. Logarithmic time course of sensory adaptation in electrosensory\n\nafferent nerve \ufb01bers in a weakly electric \ufb01sh. Journal of neurophysiology, 76(3):2020, 1996.\n\n[20] B.N. Lundstrom, M.H. Higgs, W.J. Spain, and A.L. Fairhall. Fractional differentiation by neocortical\n\npyramidal neurons. Nature neuroscience, 11(11):1335\u20131342, 2008.\n\n[21] B. Wark, A. Fairhall, and F. Rieke. Timescales of inference in visual adaptation. Neuron, 61(5):750\u2013761,\n\n2009.\n\n[22] R. Brette. Spiking models for level-invariant encoding. Front. in Comp. Neurosc., 5, 2011.\n[23] W. Gerstner and W. Kistler. Spiking Neuron Models: Single Neurons, Populations, Plasticity. Cambridge\n\nUniversity Press, 2002.\n\n[24] M. Buiatti and C. van Vreeswijk. Variance normalisation: a key mechanism for temporal adaptation in\n\nnatural vision? Vision Research, 43(17):1895\u20131906, August 2003.\n\n[25] S. Deneve. Bayesian spiking neurons I: inference. Neural computation, 20(1):91\u2013117, 2008.\n[26] P. Lichtsteiner, C. Posch, and T. Delbruck. A 128\u00d7 128 120 db 15 \u00b5s latency asynchronous temporal\n\ncontrast vision sensor. Solid-State Circuits, IEEE Journal of, 43(2):566\u2013576, 2008.\n\n[27] C Pozzorini, R Naud, S Mensi, and W Gerstner. Multiple timescales of adaptation in single neuron\n\nmodels. In Front. Comput. Neurosci. Conference Abstract: BCCN, 2010.\n\n[28] F. Rieke, D. Warland, and W. Bialek. Spikes: exploring the neural code. The MIT Press, 1999.\n[29] P. Seri`es, A.A. Stocker, and E.P. Simoncelli. Is the Homunculus \u201cAware\u201d of Sensory Adaptation? Neural\n\nComputation, 21:3271\u20133304, 2009.\n\n[30] S.M. Bohte and J.O. Rombouts. Fractionally Predictive Spiking Neurons. In Advances in Neural Infor-\n\nmation Processing Systems (NIPS) 23, pages 253\u2013261. The MIT Press, 2010.\n\n[31] W.J. Ma, J.M. Beck, P.E. Latham, and A. Pouget. Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes.\n\nNature neuroscience, 9(11):1432\u20131438, November 2006.\n\n[32] G. Hennequin, W. Gerstner, and J.P. P\ufb01ster. Stdp in adaptive neurons gives close-to-optimal information\n\ntransmission. Front. in Comp. Neurosc., 4, 2010.\n\n9\n\n\f", "award": [], "sourceid": 909, "authors": [{"given_name": "Sander", "family_name": "Bohte", "institution": null}]}