Model of birdsong learning based on gradient estimation by dynamic perturbation of neural conductances
Abstract
We propose a model of songbird learning that focuses on avian brain areas HVC and RA, involved in song production, and area LMAN, important for generating song variability. Plasticity at HVC --> RA synapses is driven by hypothetical "rules" depending on three signals: activation of HVC --> RA synapses, activation of LMAN --> RA synapses, and reinforcement from an internal critic that compares the bird's own song with a memorized template of an adult tutor's song. Fluctuating glutamatergic input to RA from LMAN generates behavioral variability for trial-and-error learning. The plasticity rules perform gradient-based reinforcement learning in a spiking neural network model of song production. Although the reinforcement signal is delayed, temporally imprecise, and binarized, the model learns in a reasonable amount of time in numerical simulations. Varying the number of neurons in HVC and RA has little effect on learning time. The model makes specific predictions for the induction of bidirectional long-term plasticity at HVC --> RA synapses.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Birdsong learning is driven by reinforcement learning using a specialized cost function that relies on comparison with a memorized version of a tutor's song, and it involves specialized structures for controlling song variability during learning.
“Likewise, it is believed that birdsong learning is driven by reinforcement learning using a specialized cost function that relies on comparison with a memorized version of a tutor's song (Fiete et al., 2007), and also that it involves specialized structures for controlling song variability during learning (Aronov et al., 2011).”
From Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience (2016) · cites this paper as Fiete et al., 2007
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 76 · Cited by 167
- Authors
- Fiete, I. R., Fee, M. S., & Seung, H. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2038-2057
- ISSN
- 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1598
- OpenAlex
- W2106437793
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 8.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- songbird vocal learning, HVC, Ras, LMAN, synaptic plasticity, spiking neural network model, song variability, delayed reinforcement
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Animals, Learning, Models, Neurological, Motor Neurons, Neural Conduction, Neuronal Plasticity, Neurons, Pitch Perception, Reinforcement, Psychology, Synapses, Vocalization, Animal, Finches
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