Print 26 comment(s) - last by LRonaldHubbs.. on Aug 8 at 11:32 AM

  (Source: TriStar Pictures)
Neuromorphic community continues to advance towards offering analogous behavior to mammal brains

Researchers have long hoped to emulate the way living organisms process and store information -- neural networks -- either in code or via simulations of true neurons on supercomputers.  But the Universität Zürich (Univ. of Zürich) and Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH Zürich) are dreaming much bigger imagining creating special circuits that mimic neurons in hardware, not software, allowing the speed necessary to perform incredibly compex tasks such as allowing an intelligent robot to recognize the objects it "sees" via retinal sensors or "hears" via cochlea-mimicking devices.

The researchers begin by using a "neuron" circuit to create masses of untrained neurons using standard very-large-scale integration (VLSI) design techniques.  They then map sensor inputs to neurons' bias voltages creating soft state machine style neural networks.

The resulting networks that can best recall the inputs -- in terms of gain, signal restoration, and multistability -- are then preserved.

The brain-like circuit, which researchers dubbed a "neuromorphic" chip, is used in a demo to perform "real-time context-dependent classification of motion patterns observed by a silicon retina."

brain chipNeuromorphic chips learn and process information faster than software models run on traditional hardware. [Image Source: INI]

Giacomo Indiveri, a professor at the Swiss universities' Institute of Neuroinformatics (INI) comments [press release], "Our goal is to emulate the properties of biological neurons and synapses directly on microchips.  The network connectivity patterns [in our latest work] closely resemble structures that are also found in mammalian brains.  Thanks to our method, neuromorphic chips can be configured for a large class of behavior modes. Our results are pivotal for the development of new brain-inspired technologies."

Retinal implant
The INI's new neuromorphic chip uses a retina-like sensor as a visual input for learning.
[Image Source: GeekInfo]

The INI's work builds on University of Sydney Electrical Engineering Professor Andre van Shaik's 1996 digital neuron model [abstract], which consists of transistors and capacitors attached to various voltage and current sources.  

Neuron circuit
In a neuromorphic chip, neurons are modeled as digital circuits, such as the one pictured.
[Image Source: Neural Networks/Elsevier]

This approach (also known as "spiking neural network" hardware) is different from the analog circuit model first demonstrated by the aforementioned Prof. Rodney Douglas (who at the time was a professor at the University of Oxford, UK) and Misha Mahowald, a California Institute of Technology (CalTech) PhD student, back in 1991.

The advantage of the digital approach is that while it lacks in the detailed reproduction of every facet the neuron's electrical behavior it "coarse grains" its basic operation down to a much smaller circuit, allowing large networks of neurons to be built.

International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) is but one of the large companies looking to productize neuromorphic chips.

A study on the work was published [abstract] in July's early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).  Co-authors of the work include Elisabetta Chicca, a postdoctoral research at the INI who since has moved to the Universität Bielefeld in Germany; INI director Prof. Rodney DouglasUeli Rutishauser, a postodoctoral researcher at Frankfurt, Germany's Max Planck Institute for Brain ResearchEmre Neftci, another postdoc at the INI; and Jonathan Binas, a PhD student at the INI.

Sources: ETH Zürich [press release], PNAS [abstract]

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Digital?
By LRonaldHubbs on 8/8/2013 11:26:14 AM , Rating: 2
I've never called this circuit "digital".

You did implicity by disgreeing with the assertion that it is not digital.

My point is that it does not make sense to call any circuit "digital", "analog", or "mixed signal" until you know what kind of signal flows through the circuit.

But we do know this information because the schematic was given to us. The inputs are voltage and current sources, not digital signals.

That's why I disagreed with your original statement that this circuit can't be digital just because it has a capacitor.

That wasn't the only reason that I gave in my original statement. The circuit also contains current mirrors, which are classic analog structures.

Your argument about a black box is not relevant, because I am looking inside the circuit.

It's not irrelevant. You said that to determine if this circuit is digital we should consider the input and output signal types and look at how upstream and downstream circuits see this circuit. That by definition is the black-box approach.

"If I am looking inside a DRAM cell, and the signal there appears digital, from my perspective, then the DRAM cell is a digital circuit to me."

The DRAM cell node leaks over time, and if it is not refreshed it will become indeterminate. That makes it analog, not digital. The DRAM cell's state is "read" by another analog circuit called a sense amplifier. The read data output from the sense amp the absolute lowest level of a DRAM which can be considered digital from an system I/O perspective.

What's relevant here is, again, the nature of the signal, not the design of a circuit.

Like I've said repeatedly, if you want to take the system POV and look only at I/O signals then this is true. If, on the other hand, you're looking inside the black box and taking the circuit designer POV, then the internal nodes of the circuit are relevant.

Do you see my point?

I see your point when taking the system POV, but I clearly communicated that because a schematic is given, the caption for that schematic should take the circuit designer POV. I don't understand why you're continuing to push the system POV while ignoring the context of both my posts and the image in question.

Just to be clear, what is your definition of a digital or analog circuit?

From a system POV, treating all circuits as black boxes:
digital circuit -- digital inputs and ouputs
analog circuit -- analog inputs and outputs
mixed signal -- some combination of the two

From what I can tell, ^that^ is exactly your defintion.

From a circuit designer perspective, looking at the contents of the box:
digital circuit -- all internal nodes can be represented by Boolean expressions
analog circuit -- no nodes have Boolean expressions
mixed-signal -- anything in between the two

My point from the very beginning has been that because we were presented the circuit a standalone unit and given an image of its exact contents, the caption for that image must assume the circuit designer's perspective.

"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki