Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 207

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What Can a Neuron Learn with Spike-Timing-Dependent Plasticity?

Legenstein, Robert, Naeger, Christian, Maass, Wolfgang·2005·Neural Computation

Abstract

Spiking neurons are very flexible computational modules, which can implement with different values of their adjustable synaptic parameters an enormous variety of different transformations F from input spike trains to output spike trains. We examine in this letter the question to what extent a spiking neuron with biologically realistic models for dynamic synapses can be taught via spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) to implement a given transformation F. We consider a supervised learning paradigm where during training, the output of the neuron is clamped to the target signal (teacher forcing). The well-known perceptron convergence theorem asserts the convergence of a simple supervised learning algorithm for drastically simplified neuron models (McCulloch-Pitts neurons). We show that in contrast to the perceptron convergence theorem, no theoretical guarantee can be given for the convergence of STDP with teacher forcing that holds for arbitrary input spike patterns. On the other hand, we prove that average case versions of the perceptron convergence theorem hold for STDP in the case of uncorrelated and correlated Poisson input spike trains and simple models for spiking neurons. For a wide class of cross-correlation functions of the input spike trains, the resulting necessary and sufficient condition can be formulated in terms of linear separability, analogously as the well-known condition of learnability by perceptrons. However, the linear separability criterion has to be applied here to the columns of the correlation matrix of the Poisson input. We demonstrate through extensive computer simulations that the theoretically predicted convergence of STDP with teacher forcing also holds for more realistic models for neurons, dynamic synapses, and more general input distributions. In addition, we show through computer simulations that these positive learning results hold not only for the common interpretation of STDP, where STDP changes the weights of synapses, but also for a more realistic interpretation suggested by experimental data where STDP modulates the initial release probability of dynamic synapses.

Overview

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 · 10.1162/0899766054796888

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 207

Metadata

Authors
Legenstein, R., Naeger, C., & Maass, W.
Venue
Neural Computation
Published
2005-11-01
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
2337-2382
ISSN
  • 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-888X
OpenAlex
W1982580897
Cited by
207
References
4
FWCI
11.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Can a Neuron Learn with Spike-Timing-Dependent Plasticity? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/0899766054796888
The paper
Legenstein, R., Naeger, C., & Maass, W. (2005). What Can a Neuron Learn with Spike-Timing-Dependent Plasticity? Neural Computation. https://doi.org/10.1162/0899766054796888

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.