Cited by 448Neural Networks and ApplicationsNeural dynamics and brain functionNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

The Role of Constraints in Hebbian Learning

Miller, Kenneth D., MacKay, David J. C.·1994·Neural Computation

Abstract

Models of unsupervised, correlation-based (Hebbian) synaptic plasticity are typically unstable: either all synapses grow until each reaches the maximum allowed strength, or all synapses decay to zero strength. A common method of avoiding these outcomes is to use a constraint that conserves or limits the total synaptic strength over a cell. We study the dynamic effects of such constraints. Two methods of enforcing a constraint are distinguished, multiplicative and subtractive. For otherwise linear learning rules, multiplicative enforcement of a constraint results in dynamics that converge to the principal eigenvector of the operator determining unconstrained synaptic development. Subtractive enforcement, in contrast, typically leads to a final state in which almost all synaptic strengths reach either the maximum or minimum allowed value. This final state is often dominated by weight configurations other than the principal eigenvector of the unconstrained operator. Multiplicative enforcement yields a “graded” receptive field in which most mutually correlated inputs are represented, whereas subtractive enforcement yields a receptive field that is “sharpened” to a subset of maximally correlated inputs. If two equivalent input populations (e.g., two eyes) innervate a common target, multiplicative enforcement prevents their segregation (ocular dominance segregation) when the two populations are weakly correlated; whereas subtractive enforcement allows segregation under these circum…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/neco.1994.6.1.100

Cites

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?

  • LTP and LTD generate a powerful destabilizing force on network function.

    “synapse-specific correlation-based plasticity mechanisms such as long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) are widely thought to contribute to learning and information storage, but theoreticians have long appreciated that they generate a powerful destabilizing force on network function (Miller and MacKay 1994;Abbott and Nelson 2000).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 47 · Cited by 448

Authors
Miller, K. D., & MacKay, D. J. C.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Neural Computation
Published
1994-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
100-126
ISSN
  • 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-888X
OpenAlex
W2027896245
Cited by
448
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 14
FWCI
23.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neural Computation (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
Hebbian learning, synaptic plasticity, constraint enforcement, principal eigenvector, receptive fields, unsupervised learning, neural network 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