Enhancing convergence efficiency of self-propelled agents using direction preference

2022 ◽  
Vol 586 ◽  
pp. 126415
Author(s):  
Yu-Rong Chen ◽  
Xian-Xia Zhang ◽  
Yin-Sheng Yu ◽  
Shi-Wei Ma ◽  
Banghua Yang
Keyword(s):  
2006 ◽  
Vol 69 (10-12) ◽  
pp. 1272-1276 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Bednar ◽  
Risto Miikkulainen

Neuron ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 376-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peichao Li ◽  
Shude Zhu ◽  
Ming Chen ◽  
Chao Han ◽  
Haoran Xu ◽  
...  

Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 349 (6243) ◽  
pp. 70-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Wertz ◽  
Stuart Trenholm ◽  
Keisuke Yonehara ◽  
Daniel Hillier ◽  
Zoltan Raics ◽  
...  

Individual cortical neurons can selectively respond to specific environmental features, such as visual motion or faces. How this relates to the selectivity of the presynaptic network across cortical layers remains unclear. We used single-cell–initiated, monosynaptically restricted retrograde transsynaptic tracing with rabies viruses expressing GCaMP6s to image, in vivo, the visual motion–evoked activity of individual layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons and their presynaptic networks across layers in mouse primary visual cortex. Neurons within each layer exhibited similar motion direction preferences, forming layer-specific functional modules. In one-third of the networks, the layer modules were locked to the direction preference of the postsynaptic neuron, whereas for other networks the direction preference varied by layer. Thus, there exist feature-locked and feature-variant cortical networks.


Nature ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 379 (6567) ◽  
pp. 725-728 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Weliky ◽  
William H. Bosking ◽  
David Fitzpatrick

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 624-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRENDA NICODEMUS ◽  
KAREN EMMOREY

Spoken language (unimodal) interpreters often prefer to interpret from their non-dominant language (L2) into their native language (L1). Anecdotally, signed language (bimodal) interpreters express the opposite bias, preferring to interpret from L1 (spoken language) into L2 (signed language). We conducted a large survey study (N = 1,359) of both unimodal and bimodal interpreters that confirmed these preferences. The L1 to L2 direction preference was stronger for novice than expert bimodal interpreters, while novice and expert unimodal interpreters did not differ from each other. The results indicated that the different direction preferences for bimodal and unimodal interpreters cannot be explained by language production–comprehension asymmetries or by work or training experiences. We suggest that modality and language-specific features of signed languages drive the directionality preferences of bimodal interpreters. Specifically, we propose that fingerspelling, transcoding (literal word-for-word translation), self-monitoring, and consumers’ linguistic variation influence the preference of bimodal interpreters for working into their L2.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Wang ◽  
Dong-Po Xia ◽  
Bing-Hua Sun ◽  
Jin-Hua Li

Abstract Coordination and consensus in collective behavior have attracted a lot of research interest. Although previous studies have investigated the role of compromisers in group consensus, they provide little insight into why compromisers would allow such social arrangements to persist. In this study, the potential relationship between group movements and conflict management in Tibetan macaques in Anhui province, China, was investigated using hierarchical cluster analyses. Some members with higher social centrality or social rank often formed a front-runner cluster during group movements. They had higher leadership success than individuals outside the front-runner cluster. Other members with lower social centrality or social rank often followed the group movements initiated by the front-runner cluster, and thus formed the compromiser cluster. Compromisers’ proximity relations with front-runners increased with their following scores to front-runners. Compromisers had fewer events of being attacked when they followed group movements initiated by the front-runners. The compromising process made compromisers lose the choice of direction preference, but it could increase their individual safeties. This trade-off suggests that compromisers play a role of decision-maker in coordination and consensus scenarios among social animals.


1997 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Crook ◽  
Zoltan F. Kisvárday ◽  
Ulf T. Eysel

AbstractMicroiontophoresis of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) was used to reversibly inactivate small sites of defined orientation/direction specificity in layers II-IV of cat area 17 while single cells were recorded in the same area at a horizontal distance of ~350–700 jam. We compared the effect of inactivating iso-orientation sites (where orientation preference was within 22.5 deg) and cross-orientation sites (where it differed by 45–90 deg) on orientation tuning and directionality. The influence of iso-orientation inactivation was tested in 33 cells, seven of which were subjected to alternate inactivation of two iso-orientation sites with opposite direction preference. Of the resulting 40 inactivations, only two (5%) caused significant changes in orientation tuning, whereas 26 (65%) elicited effects on directionality: namely, an increase or a decrease in response to a cell's preferred direction when its direction preference was the same as that at an inactivation site, and an increase in response to a cell's nonpreferred direction when its direction preference was opposite that at an inactivation site. It is argued that the decreases in response to the preferred direction reflected a reduction in the strength of intracortical iso-orientation excitatory connections, while the increases in response were due to the loss of iso-orientation inhibition. Of 35 cells subjected to cross-orientation inactivation, only six (17%) showed an effect on directionality, whereas 21 (60%) showed significant broadening of orientation tuning, with an increase in mean tuning width at half-height of 126%. The effects on orientation tuning were due to increases in response to nonoptimal orientations. Changes in directionality also resulted from increased responses (to preferred or nonpreferred directions) and were always accompanied by broadening of tuning. Thus, the effects of cross-orientation inactivation were presumably due to the loss of a cross-orientation inhibitory input that contributes mainly to orientation tuning by suppressing responses to nonoptimal orientations. Differential effects of iso-orientation and cross-orientation inactivation could be elicited in the same cell or in different cells from the same inactivation site. The results suggest the involvement of three different intracortical processes in the generation of orientation tuning and direction selectivity in area 17: (1) suppression of responses to nonoptimal orientations and directions as a result of cross-orientation inhibition and iso-orientation inhibition between cells with opposite direction preferences; (2) amplification of responses to optimal stimuli via iso-orientation excitatory connections; and (3) regulation of cortical amplification via iso-orientation inhibition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document