TRAINING PROBABILISTIC SPIKING NEURAL NETWORKS WITH FIRST-TO-SPIKE
DECODING
Alireza Bagheri† , Osvaldo Simeone‡ , and Bipin Rajendran†

arXiv:1710.10704v3 [stat.ML] 22 Feb 2018

†

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE),
New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, USA.
Email: {ab745; bipin}@njit.edu
‡
Centre for Telecommunications Research, Department of Informatics,
King’s College London, London, WC2R 2LS, UK.
Email: osvaldo.simeone@kcl.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
Third-generation neural networks, or Spiking Neural Networks
(SNNs), aim at harnessing the energy efficiency of spike-domain
processing by building on computing elements that operate on,
and exchange, spikes. In this paper, the problem of training a
two-layer SNN is studied for the purpose of classification, under
a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) probabilistic neural model
that was previously considered within the computational neuroscience literature. Conventional classification rules for SNNs
operate offline based on the number of output spikes at each
output neuron. In contrast, a novel training method is proposed
here for a first-to-spike decoding rule, whereby the SNN can
perform an early classification decision once spike firing is
detected at an output neuron. Numerical results bring insights
into the optimal parameter selection for the GLM neuron and on
the accuracy-complexity trade-off performance of conventional
and first-to-spike decoding.
Index Terms— Spiking Neural Network (SNN), Generalized Linear Model (GLM), first-to-spike decoding, neuromorphic computing
1. INTRODUCTION
Most current machine learning methods rely on secondgeneration neural networks, which consist of simple static
non-linear neurons. In contrast, neurons in the human brain
are known to communicate by means of sparse spiking processes. As a result, they are mostly inactive, and energy is
consumed sporadically. Third-generation neural networks, or
Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs), aim at harnessing the energy
efficiency of spike-domain processing by building on computing
elements that operate on, and exchange, spikes [1]. SNNs can be
natively implemented on neuromorphic chips that are currently
being developed within academic projects and by major chip
manufacturers. Proof-of-concept implementations have shown
remarkable energy savings by multiple orders of magnitude with
respect to second-generation neural networks (see, e.g., [2], [3]).
Notwithstanding the potential of SNNs, a significant stumbling block to their adoption is the dearth of flexible and ef-

1
1 2

T

1 2

T

1

1 2

T΄

NY 1 2

T΄

Output layer
1 2

T

NX

Input layer

Fig. 1. Two-layer SNN for supervised learning.

fective learning algorithms. Most existing algorithms are based
on variations of the unsupervised mechanism of Spike-Timing
Dependent Plasticity (STDP), which updates synaptic weights
based on local input and output spikes, and supervised variations that leverage global feedback [4], [5]. Another common
approach is to convert trained second-generation networks to
SNNs [6], [7]. Among the learning methods that attempt to
directly maximize a spike-domain performance criterion, most
techniques assume deterministic Spike Response Model (SRM)
neurons, and propose various approximations to cope with the
non-differentiability of the neurons’ outputs (see [8], [9] and
references therein).
While the use of probabilistic models for spiking neurons is
standard in the context of computational neuroscience (see, e.g.,
[10]), probabilistic modeling has been sparsely considered in the
machine learning literature on SNNs. This is despite the known
increased flexibility and expressive power of probabilistic models [11], [12]. In the context of SNNs, as an example, probabilistic models have the capability of learning firing thresholds
using standard gradient based methods, while in deterministic
models these are instead treated as hyperparameters and set by
using heuristic mechanisms such as homeostasis [13]. The state
of the art on supervised learning with probabilistic models is
set by [14] that considers Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)

for Maximum Likelihood (ML) training, under the assumption
that there exist given desired output spike trains for all output
neurons.
In this paper, we study the problem of training the two-layer
SNN illustrated in Fig. 1 under a probabilistic neuron model, for
the purpose of classification. Conventional decoding in SNNs
operates offline by selecting the output neuron, and hence the
corresponding class, with the largest number of output spikes
[14]. In contrast, we study here a first-to-spike decoding rule,
whereby the SNN can perform an early classification decision
once a spike firing is detected at an output neuron. This generally
reduces decision latency and complexity during the inference
phase. The first-to-spike decision method has been investigated
with temporal, rather than rate, coding and deterministic neurons
in [15]–[18], but no learning algorithm exists under probabilistic
neural models.
To fill this gap, we first propose the use of the flexible
and computationally tractable Generalized Linear Model (GLM)
that was introduced in [19] in the context of computational
neuroscience (Section 3). Under this model, we then derive
a novel SGD-based learning algorithm that maximizes the
likelihood that the first spike is observed at the correct output
neuron (Section 4). Finally, we present numerical results that
bring insights into the optimal parameter selection for the GLM
neuron and on the accuracy-complexity trade-off performance
of conventional and first-to-spike decoding rules.
2. SPIKING NEURAL NETWORK WITH GLM
NEURONS
In this section, we describe the architecture of the two-layer
SNN under study and then we present the proposed GLM neuron
model.
Architecture. We consider the problem of classification
using a two-layer SNN. As shown in Fig. 1, the SNN is fully
connected and has NX presynaptic neurons in the input, or
sensory layer, and NY neurons in the output layer. Each output
neuron is associated with a class. In order to feed the SNN,
an input example, e.g., a gray scale image, is converted to a
set of NX discrete-time spike trains, each with T samples,
through rate encoding. The input spike trains are fed to the NY
postsynaptic GLM neurons, which output discrete-time spike
trains. A decoder then selects the image class on the basis of the
spike trains emitted by the output neurons.
Rate encoding. With the conventional rate encoding
method, each entry of the input signal, e.g., each pixel for
images, is converted into a discrete-time spike train by generating an independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Bernoulli
vectors. The probability of generating a “1”, i.e., a spike, is
proportional to the value of the entry. In the experiments in Sec.
5, we use gray scale images with pixel intensities between 0 and
255 that yield a spike probability between 0 and 1/2.
GLM neuron model. The relationship between the input
spike trains from the NX presynaptic neurons and the output
spike train of any postsynaptic neuron i follows a GLM, as
illustrated in Fig. 2. To elaborate, we denote as xj,t and yi,t

x1 τ
y

tT

1

α1,i

γi
ui,t activation g(ui,t) Bernoulli
+
function
r.v. gen.

xNX
1

τy

tT

yi τ'y
1

t T΄

βi

αNX,i

Fig. 2. GLM neuron model.
the binary signal emitted by the j -th presynaptic and the ith postsynaptic neurons, respectively, at time t. Also, we let
xbj,a = (xj,a , ..., xj,b ) be the vector of samples from spiking
process of the presynaptic neuron j in the time interval [a, b].
b
Similarly, the vector yi,a
= (yi,a , ..., yi,b ) contains samples
from the spiking process of the neuron i in the interval [a, b].
As seen in Fig. 2, the output yi,t of postsynaptic neuron i at time
t is Bernoulli distributed, with firing probability that depends on
t−1
the past spiking behaviors {xj,t−τ
} of the presynaptic neurons
y
j = 1, ..., NX in a window of duration τy samples, as well as
t−1
on the past spike timings yi,t−τ
0 of neuron i in a window of
y
0
duration τy samples. Mathematically, the membrane potential of
postsynaptic neuron i at time t is given by
NX
X
T t−1
(1)
αTj,i xt−1
ui,t =
j,t−τy + β i yi,t−τ 0 + γi ,
y

j=1
τy

where αj,i ∈ R is a vector that defines the synaptic kernel
(SK) applied on the {j, i} synapse between presynaptic neuron
0
j and postsynaptic neuron i; β i ∈ Rτy is the feedback kernel
(FK); and γi is a bias parameter. The vector of variable parameters θ i includes the bias γi and the parameters that define the
SK and FK filters, which are discussed below. Accordingly, the
T
log-probability of the entire spike train yi = [yi,1 , ..., yi,T ]
NX
conditioned on the input spike trains x = {xj }j=1 can be
written as
T
X
log pθi (yi |x ) =
[yi,t log g (ui,t ) + ȳi,t log ḡ (ui,t )],
t=1

(2)
where g (·) is an activation function, such as the sigmoid
function g (x) = σ (x) = 1/ (1 + exp (−x)), and we defined
ȳi,t = 1 − yi,t and ḡ (ui,t ) = 1 − g (ui,t ).
Unlike prior work on SNNs with GLM neurons, we adopt
here the parameterized model introduced in [19] in the field
of computational neuroscience. Accordingly, the SK and FK
filters are parameterized as the sum of fixed basis functions with
learnable weights. To elaborate, we write the SK αj,i and the
FK β i as
αj,i = Awj,i , and β i = Bvi ,
(3)
respectively, where we have defined
 the matrices A =
[a1 , ..., aKα ] and B = b1 , ..., bKβ and the vectors wj,i =

T
T
[wj,i,1 , ..., wj,i,Kα ] and vi = vi,1 , ..., vi,Kβ ; Kα and
Kβ denote the respective number of basis functions; ak =

1

2
1

3

4

6

5

7

4. TRAINING WITH FIRST-TO-SPIKE DECODING

8

0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Time index t

Fig. 3. Basis functions used in Sec. 5 (a = 7500 and c = 1 in
[19, Sec. Methods]).
iT
h
T
are the basis
and bk = bk,1 , ..., bk,τy0
ak,1 , ..., ak,τy
vectors; and {wj,i,k } and {vi,k } are the learnable weights for
the kernels αj,i and β i , respectively. This parameterization generalizes previously studied models for machine learning application. For instance, as a special case, if we set Kα = Kβ = 1,
set a1 and b1 as in [14, eqs. (4) and (5)], and fix the weights
vi,1 = 1, equation (2) yields a discrete-time approximation of
the model considered in [14]. As another example, if we set
Kα = τy , Kβ = τy0 , ak = 1k , bk = 1k , where 1k is the
all-zero vector except for a one in position k , (1) yields the unstructured GLM model considered in [20]. For the experiments
discussed in Sec. 5, we adopt the time-localized raised cosine
basis functions introduced in [19], which are illustrated in Fig.
3. Note that this model is flexible enough to include the learning
of synaptic delays [21], [22].



In this section, we introduce the proposed learning approach
based on GLM neurons and first-to-spike decoding.
During the inference phase, with first-to-spike decoding, a
decision is made once a first spike is observed at an output
neuron. In order to train the SNN for this classification rule, we
propose to follow the ML criterion by maximizing the probability to have the first spike at the output neuron corresponding to
the correct label c. The logarithm of this probability for a given
example x can be written as
!
T
X
L (θ) = log
pt (θ) ,
(5)
t=1

where

N
Y
Y

pt (θ) =

t
Y

ḡ (ui,t0 )g (uc,t )

i=1,i6=c t0 =1

t−1
Y

ḡ (uc,t0 ),

(6)

t0 =1

is the probability of having the first spike at the correct neuron
c at time t. In (6), the potential ui,t for all i is obtained from (1)
by setting yi,t = 0 for all i and t. The log-likelihood function
L (θ) in (5) is not concave, and we tackle its maximization via
SGD.
To this end, the gradients of the log-likelihood function for
a given input x can be computed after some algebra as (see
Appendix B for details)
∇wj,i L (θ)

T
P


i 6= c
ρi,t ht g (ui,t ) AT xt−1
 −
j,t−τy
(7)
t=1
,
=
T
P

t−1
 −

ρc,t (ht g (uc,t ) − qt ) AT xj,t−τy i = c
t=1

3. TRAINING WITH CONVENTIONAL DECODING
In this section, we briefly review ML training based on conventional rate decoding for the two-layer SNN. During the inference
phase, decoding is conventionally carried out in post-processing
by selecting the output neuron with the largest number of spikes.
In order to facilitate the success of this decoding rule, in the
training phase, the postsynaptic neuron corresponding to the
correct label c ∈ {1, ..., NY } is typically assigned a desired
output spike train yc with a number of spikes, while a zero
output is assigned to the other postsynaptic neurons yi with
i 6= c.
Using the ML criterion, one hence maximizes the sum of
the log-probabilities (2) of the desired output spikes y (c) =
{y1 (c) , ..., yNY (c)} for the correct label c given the NX input
spike trains x = {x1 , ..., xNX }, i.e.,
NY
X
L (θ) =
log pθi ( yi (c)| x).
(4)
i=1

The sum is further extended to all examples in the training set.
The parameter vector θ = {W, V, γ} includes the parameters
NY
NY
NY
W = {Wi }i=1
, V = {vi }i=1
and γ = {γi }i=1
. The
negative log-likelihood −L (θ) is convex with respect to θ and
can be minimized via SGD. For completeness, we report the
gradients of L (θ) in Appendix A.

for the weights and

T
P


ρi,t ht g (ui,t )
 −
t=1
∇γi L (θ) =
T
P


 −
ρc,t (ht g (uc,t ) − qt )

i 6= c
, (8)
i=c

t=1

for the biases, where we have defined
g 0 (ui,t )
,
ρi,t =
g (ui,t ) ḡ (ui,t )
and
T
t−1
X
X
ht =
qt0 = 1 −
qt0 ,
t0 =t

(9)

(10)

t0 =1

with

qt =

pt (θ)
T
P

.

(11)

pt0 (θ)

t0 =1

Note that we have ρi,t = 1 when g is the sigmoid function.
Based on (7), the resulting SGD update can be considered as
a neo-Hebbian rule [23], since it multiplies the contributions of
the presynaptic neurons and of the postsynaptic activity, where
the former depends on x and the latter on the potential ui,t .
Furthermore, in (7)−(8), the probabilities g (ui,t ) and g (uc,t )
of firing at time t are weighted by the probability ht in (10). By
(11), this is the probability that the correct neuron is the first to
spike and that it fires at some time t0 ≥ t, given that it is the
first to spike at some time in the interval [1, 2, ..., T ].

99

100

2 digits

90

ANN

98.5

T = 32
T = 16
T=8

80

Test Accuracy [%]

Test Accuracy [%]

98

4 digits

70

10 digits

60

T = 32

T = 16

97.5

T=4
97

T=8

96.5
96

50

40

Conventional (rate) dec.
First-to-spike dec.
1

2

3

Conventional (rate) dec.
First-to-spike dec.

95.5

4

K

Fig. 4. Test accuracy versus the number K of basis functions for
both conventional (rate) and first-to-spike decoding rules when
T = 4.
As a practical note, in order to avoid vanishing values
in calculating the weights (11), we compute each probability term pt (θ) in the log-domain, and normalize all the
resulting terms with
P respect to the minimum probability as
qt = exp (at ) / Tt0 =1 exp (at0 ), where at = ln (pt ) −
mint (ln (pt )).
5. NUMERICAL RESULTS
In this section, we numerically study the performance of the
probabilistic SNN in Fig. 1 under conventional and first-to-spike
decoding rules. We use the standard MNIST dataset [24] as the
input data. As a result, we have NX = 784, with one input
neuron per pixel of the x images. Following [3], we consider
different number of classes, or digits, namely, the two digits
{5, 7}, the four digits {5, 7, 1, 9} and all 10 digits {0, ..., 9},
and we use 1000 samples of each class for training and the same
number for test set. We use a desired spike train with one spike
after every three zeros for training the conventional decoding.
SGD with minibatch size of one with 200 training epochs is
used for both schemes. Ten-fold cross-validation is applied for
selecting between 10−3 or 10−4 for the constant learning rates.
The model parameters θ are randomly initialized with uniform
distribution between -1 and 1.
We evaluate the performance of the schemes in terms of
classification accuracy in the test set and of inference complexity. The inference complexity is measured by the total number
of elementary operations, namely additions and multiplications,
for input image that are required by the SNN during inference.
The number of arithmetic operations needed to calculate the
membrane potential (1) of neuron i at time instant t is of
the order of O NX τy + τy0 . As a result, in the conventional
decoding method, the inference complexity per output neuron,
or per class, is of the order O (T (NX sx + sy )), where sx and
sy are the fraction of spikes in x and y, respectively. In contrast,
with the first-to-spike decoding rule, the SNN can perform an

95

T=4
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Inference Complexity [# elem. op.]

Fig. 5. Test accuracy versus per-class inference complexity for
both conventional (rate) and first-to-spike decoding rules.

early decision once a single spike is detected, and hence its
complexity order is O (t (NX sx + sy )), where 1 ≤ t ≤ T is
the (random) decision time.
We first consider the test classification accuracy as a function
of the number K of basis functions in the GLM neural model.
The basis functions are numbered as in Fig. 3, and we set T = 4.
From Fig. 4, we observe that conventional decoding requires a
large number K in order to obtain its best accuracy. This is
due to the need to ensure that the correct output neuron fires
consistently more than the other neurons in response to the input
spikes. This, in turn, requires a larger temporal reception field,
i.e., a larger K , to be sensitive to the randomly located input
spikes. We note that for small values of T , such as T = 4, firstto-spike decoding obtains better accuracies than conventional
decoding.
Fig. 5 depicts the test classification accuracy versus the
inference complexity for both conventional and first-to-spike
decoding rules for two digits when K = T . The classification
accuracy of a conventional two-layer artificial neural network
(ANN) with logistic neurons is added for comparison. From
the figure, first-to-spike decoding is seen to offer a significantly
lower inference complexity, thanks to its capability for early
decisions, without compromising the accuracy. For instance,
when the classification accuracy equals to 98.4%, the complexity of the conventional decoding method is five times larger than
the first-to-spike method. Note also that conventional decoding
generally requires large values of T to perform satisfactorily.

6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have proposed a novel learning method for
probabilistic two-layer SNN that operates according to the firstto-spike learning rule. We have demonstrated that the proposed
method improves the accuracy-inference complexity trade-off
with respect to conventional decoding. Additional work is
needed in order to generalize the results to multi-layer networks.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the U.S. NSF under grant ECCS
#1710009. O. Simeone has also received funding from the
European Research Council (ERC) under the European Unions
Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement #725731).

APPENDIX
A. GRADIENTS FOR CONVENTIONAL DECODING
For a given input x, the gradients of the log-likelihood function
L (θ) in (4) for conventional decoding are given as
T
X
∇wj,i L (θ) =
ei,t ρi,t AT xt−1
(12)
j,t−τy ,
t=1

∇vi L (θ) =

T
X

T

ei,t ρi,t B

t−1
yi,t−τ
0,
y

(13)

t=1

and

∇γi L (θ) =

T
X

ei,t ρi,t ,

(14)

t=1

we have
t
t
t
Y
Y
X
g 0 (ui,t0 )
∇wj,i
ḡ (ui,t0 ) = −
∇wj,i ui,t0
ḡ (ui,t0 )
ḡ (ui,t0 )
t0 =1
t0 =1
t0 =1

=−

t
Y
t0 =1

ei,t = yi,t − g (ui,t ) ,

=−

t=1

∇wj,i pt (θ)

t=1
T
P

(17)

pt (θ)

t0 =1

(21)

ht ρi,t g (ui,t ) ∇wj,i ui,t ,

t=1

where we have defined qt and ht as in (11) and (10), respectively. Given that we have the equality ∇wj,i ui,t = AT xt−1
j,t−τy ,
we have (7) for ∇wj,i L (θ) when i 6= c.
The gradient of L (θ) with respect to wj,i for i = c can be
calculated as:
!
T
t−1
X
Y
∇wj,c L (θ) =
kc,t ∇wj,c g (uc,t )
ḡ (uc,t0 ) , (22)
t0 =1

t=1
N
QY

(16)

The gradient of L (θ) with respect to wj,i for i 6= c can be
calculated as:
!
T
X
∇wj,i L (θ) = ∇wj,i log
pt (θ)

=

t=1
T
X

kc,t =

B. CALCULATION OF GRADIENTS FOR FIRST-TOSPIKE DECODING

ρi,t0 g (ui,t0 ) ∇wj,i ui,t0 ,

t0 =1

(15)

is the error signal, and ρi,t is given as
g 0 (ui,t )
ρi,t =
,
g (ui,t ) ḡ (ui,t )
∆ dg(ui,t )
where g 0 (ui,t ) = dui,t
.

T
P

t
X

(20)
where we have used the equality ḡ 0 (u) = −g 0 (u) and ρi,t is
defined as in (9). After substituting (20) into (17), we have
T
t
X
X
∇wj,i L (θ) = −
qt
ρi,t0 g (ui,t0 ) ∇wj,i ui,t0

where

where

ḡ (ui,t0 )

t
Q

ḡ (ui,t0 )

i=1,i6=c t0 =1
T
P

.

(23)

pt0 (θ)

t0 =1

Using (19), we have
∇wj,c L (θ)
"
#
T
t−1 0
X
X
g 0 (uc,t )
g (uc,t0 )
=
qt
∇wj,c uc,t −
∇wj,c uc,t0
g (uc,t )
ḡ (uc,t0 )
t=1
t0 =1
"
#
T
t
X
X
=
qt ρc,t ∇wj,c uc,t −
ρc,t0 g (uc,t0 ) ∇wj,c uc,t0 .
t=1

t0 =1

(24)
into
(24)
and
Thus, by substituting ∇wj,c uc,t = AT xt−1
j,t−τy
after simplification, equation (7) is obtained for i = c, which
completes the proof. Note that, the same procedure is done for
∇γi L (θ) by considering the equality ∇γi ui,t = 1 for all i.

t=1

=
where

ki,t =

T
X

ki,t ∇wj,i

t
Q

ḡ (ui0 ,t0 )g (uc,t )

i0 =1,i0 6=i,c t0 =1

t−1
Q
t0 =1

T
P
t0 =1

8. REFERENCES

ḡ (ui,t0 ),

t0 =1

t=1
N
QY

t
Y

ḡ (uc,t0 )
.

(18)

pt0 (θ)

Using the generalized product rule for derivative of k factors
[25] as


k
k
X
Y
d Y
d
 fi (x)
fi (x) =
fj (x)
dx i=1
dx
i=1
j6=i
(19)
! k
!
k
Y
X f 0 (x)
i
=
fi (x)
,
f
(x)
i
i=1
i=1

[1] H. Paugam-Moisy and S. Bohte, “Computing with spiking
neuron networks,” in Handbook of natural computing,
2012, pp. 335–376.
[2] J.
Vincent,
“Intel
investigates
chips
designed like your brain to turn the AI tide,”
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16365390/intelinvestigates-chips-designed-like-your-brain-to-turn-the
-ai-tide, accessed: Sept. 26, 2017.
[3] A. Diamond, T. Nowotny, and M. Schmuker, “Comparing neuromorphic solutions in action: implementing a
bio-inspired solution to a benchmark classification task
on three parallel-computing platforms,” Front. Neurosci.,
vol. 9, p. 491, 2016.

[4] F. Ponulak and A. Kasiński, “Supervised learning in spiking neural networks with ReSuMe: sequence learning,
classification, and spike shifting,” Neural Comput., vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 467–510, 2010.
[5] R. V. Florian, “Reinforcement learning through modulation of spike-timing-dependent synaptic plasticity,” Neural
Comput., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1468–1502, 2007.
[6] P. O’Connor and M. Welling, “Deep spiking networks,”
arXiv preprint. arXiv:1602.08323, 2016.
[7] E. Hunsberger and C. Eliasmith, “Spiking deep networks
with LIF neurons,” arXiv preprint. arXiv:1510.08829,
2015.
[8] N. Anwani and B. Rajendran, “NormAD-normalized approximate descent based supervised learning rule for spiking neurons,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Joint Conf. on Neural
Netw. (IJCNN), 2015.
[9] J. H. Lee, T. Delbruck, and M. Pfeiffer, “Training deep
spiking neural networks using backpropagation,” Front.
Neurosci., vol. 10, p. 508, 2016.
[10] J. W. Pillow, L. Paninski, V. J. Uzzell, E. P. Simoncelli, and
E. J. Chichilnisky, “Prediction and decoding of retinal ganglion cell responses with a probabilistic spiking model,” J.
Neurosci., vol. 25, no. 47, pp. 11 003–11 013, 2005.
[11] D. Koller and N. Friedman, Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques. MIT press, 2009.
[12] O. Simeone, “A brief introduction to machine learning for
engineers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.02840, 2017.
[13] R. Jolivet, A. Rauch, H. Lüscher, and W. Gerstner, “Predicting spike timing of neocortical pyramidal neurons by
simple threshold models,” J. Comput. Neurosci., vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 35–49, 2006.
[14] B. Gardner and A. Grüning, “Supervised learning in spiking neural networks for precise temporal encoding,” PloS
ONE, vol. 11, no. 8, p. e0161335, 2016.
[15] T. Masquelier and S. J. Thorpe, “Unsupervised learning of
visual features through spike timing dependent plasticity,”
PLoS Comput. Biol., vol. 3, no. 2, p. e31, 2007.
[16] M. Mozafari, S. Kheradpisheh, T. Masquelier, A. NowzariDalini, and M. Ganjtabesh, “First-spike based visual categorization using reward-modulated STDP,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1705.09132, 2017.
[17] J. Wang, A. Belatreche, L. P. Maguire, and T. M. McGinnity, “SpikeTemp: An enhanced rank-order-based learning
approach for spiking neural networks with adaptive structure,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 28, no. 1,
pp. 30–43, 2017.
[18] Z. Lin, D. Ma, J. Meng, and L. Chen, “Relative ordering
learning in spiking neural network for pattern recognition,”
Neurocomputing, vol. 275, pp. 94–106, 2018.
[19] J. W. Pillow, J. Shlens, L. Paninski, A. Sher, A. M. Litke,
E. J. Chichilnisky, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Spatio-temporal
correlations and visual signalling in a complete neuronal
population,” Nature, vol. 454, no. 7207, pp. 995–999,
2008.
[20] J. Shlens, “Notes on generalized linear models of neurons,”
arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.1999, 2014.

[21] P. Baldi and A. F. Atiya, “How delays affect neural dynamics and learning,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks,
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 612–621, 1994.
[22] A. Taherkhani, A. Belatreche, Y. Li, and L. P. Maguire,
“DL-ReSuMe: a delay learning-based remote supervised
method for spiking neurons,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw.
Learn. Syst., vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 3137–3149, 2015.
[23] N. Frémaux and W. Gerstner, “Neuromodulated spiketiming-dependent plasticity, and theory of three-factor
learning rules,” Front. Neural Circuits, vol. 9, 2015.
[24] Y. LeCun, “The MNIST database of handwritten digits,”
http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/, 1998.
[25] Wikipedia,
“Product
rule,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product rule,
accessed:
Oct. 27, 2017.

