Cited by 535Neural dynamics and brain functionNeural Networks and ApplicationsMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Flexible control of mutual inhibition: a neural model of two-interval discrimination

Machens, Christian K., Romo, Ranulfo, Brody, Carlos D.·2005·Science

Abstract

Networks adapt to environmental demands by switching between distinct dynamical behaviors. The activity of frontal-lobe neurons during two-interval discrimination tasks is an example of these adaptable dynamics. Subjects first perceive a stimulus, then hold it in working memory, and finally make a decision by comparing it with a second stimulus. We present a simple mutual-inhibition network model that captures all three task phases within a single framework. The model integrates both working memory and decision making because its dynamical properties are easily controlled without changing its connectivity. Mutual inhibition between nonlinear units is a useful design motif for networks that must display multiple behaviors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1104171

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Machens et al. showed that such a circuit could perform discrimination computation during the comparison period, provided that a switching mechanism was posited for the afferent stimuli.

    “Machens et al. (2005) showed that such a circuit could also perform discrimination computation (f1 > f2 or f1 < f2) during the comparison period (Figure 2E), provided that a switching mechanism was posited for the afferent stimuli, such that the second stimulus reached the memory/decision circuit with the opposite sign of tuning to the first stimulus.”

    From Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits (2008) · cites this paper as Machens et al., 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Machens, C. K., Romo, R., & Brody, C. D.
Affiliations
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Brody, Carlos D.
Venue
Science
Published
2005-02-18
Volume
307
Issue
5712
Pages
1121-1124
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W1966841546
Cited by
535
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 29
FWCI
13.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH067991)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
reciprocal inhibition, working memory, decision-making, neural network model
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Cognition, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Discrimination, Psychological, Frontal Lobe, Macaca, Mathematics, Memory, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Neural Inhibition, Neurons, Neurons, Afferent, Psychomotor Performance, Somatosensory Cortex, Neural Networks, Computer, Prefrontal Cortex, Nonlinear Dynamics

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