Cited by 420Neural Networks and ApplicationsNeural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Theories of Error Back-Propagation in the Brain

Open access
Whittington, James C.R., Bogacz, Rafal·2019·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

This review article summarises recently proposed theories on how neural circuits in the brain could approximate the error back-propagation algorithm used by artificial neural networks. Computational models implementing these theories achieve learning as efficient as artificial neural networks, but they use simple synaptic plasticity rules based on activity of presynaptic and postsynaptic neurons. The models have similarities, such as including both feedforward and feedback connections, allowing information about error to propagate throughout the network. Furthermore, they incorporate experimental evidence on neural connectivity, responses, and plasticity. These models provide insights on how brain networks might be organised such that modification of synaptic weights on multiple levels of cortical hierarchy leads to improved performance on tasks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.005

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Backpropagation's core assumptions, such as a global error signal and strict separation of inference and learning phases, are incompatible with current knowledge of cortical computations and introduce interference.

    “Yet its core assumptions, like a global error signal and strict separation of inference and learning phases, are incompatible with both current knowledge of cortical computations [Whittington and Bogacz, 2019] and introduce interference [Song et al., 2024].”

    From Closed-form predictive coding via hierarchical Gaussian filters (2026) · cites this paper as Whittington and Bogacz, 2019

    The ‘Lack of Local Error Representation’ section says conventional back-propagation relies on externally computed errors, making its implementation through local biological synaptic signals unclear. The ‘Temporal-Error Models’ section also questions the biological plausibility of a global signal distinguishing learning phases, but this concerns a contrastive-learning model; the paper does not present a global error signal or strict phase separation as core assumptions of back-propagation itself. Its concerns are more qualified than the claim that these assumptions are incompatible with cortical computations. The interference claim is attached to Song et al., not this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [6]Whittington, J.C.R. et al. (2018) Generalisation of structural knowledge in the hippocampal-entorhinal system. In 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2018), Montreal
  2. [13]Sacramento, J. et al. (2018) Dendritic cortical microcircuits approximate the backpropagation algorithm. In 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2018), Montreal
  3. [25]Scellier, B. et al. (2018) Generalization of equilibrium propagation to vector field dynamics. arXiv 1808.04873 · arXiv
  4. [28]Bartunov, S. et al. (2018) Assessing the scalability of biologically-motivated deep learning algorithms and architectures. In 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2018), Montreal
  5. [35]Bengio, Y. (2014) How auto-encoders could provide credit assignment in deep networks via target propagation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.7906 · arXiv
  6. [41]Ororbia, A.G. and Mali, A. (2018) Biologically motivated algorithms for propagating local target representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11703 · arXiv
  7. [58]O’Reilly R.C. Munakata Y. Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain 2000 MIT Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whittington, J. C. R., & Bogacz, R.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
235-250
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2913907987
Cited by
420
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 14
FWCI
3.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12024/5)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
error back-propagation, brain-inspired learning, synaptic plasticity, neural circuits, computational models of learning, feedback connections, cortical hierarchy, neuronal connectivity, artificial neural networks
MeSH terms
Brain, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Nerve Net, Neural Networks, Computer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review