Analysis of a chaotic spiking neural model: The
NDS neuron

arXiv:1408.3735v1 [cs.NE] 16 Aug 2014

Mohammad Alhawarat, Waleed Nazih and Mohammad Eldesouki

Abstract Further analysis and experimentation is carried out in this paper for a
chaotic dynamic model, viz. the Nonlinear Dynamic State neuron (NDS). The analysis and experimentations are performed to further understand the underlying dynamics of the model and enhance it as well. Chaos provides many interesting properties
that can be exploited to achieve computational tasks. Such properties are sensitivity to initial conditions, space filling, control and synchronization.Chaos might play
an important role in information processing tasks in human brain as suggested by
biologists. If artificial neural networks (ANNs) is equipped with chaos then it will
enrich the dynamic behaviours of such networks. The NDS model has some limitations and can be overcome in different ways. In this paper different approaches are
followed to push the boundaries of the NDS model in order to enhance it. One way
is to study the effects of scaling the parameters of the chaotic equations of the NDS
model and study the resulted dynamics. Another way is to study the method that is
used in discretization of the original Rössler that the NDS model is based on. These
approaches have revealed some facts about the NDS attractor and suggest why such
a model can be stabilized to large number of unstable periodic orbits (UPOs) which
might correspond to memories in phase space.

Mohammad Alhawarat
Department of Computer Science, College of Computer Engineering and Sciences,
Salman Bin Abdulaziz University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Tel.: +966-1-1588371, Fax: +966-1-1588302, e-mail: m.alhawarat@sau.edu.sa
Waleed Nazih
Department of Computer Science, College of Computer Engineering and Sciences,
Salman Bin Abdulaziz University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Tel.: +966-1-1588371, Fax: +966-1-1588302, e-mail: w.nazeeh@sau.edu.sa
Mohammad Eldesouki
Department of Information Systems, College of Computer Engineering and Sciences,
Salman Bin Abdulaziz University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Tel.: +966-1-1588371, Fax: +966-1-1588302, e-mail: m.eldesouki@sau.edu.sa

1

2

Mohammad Alhawarat, Waleed Nazih and Mohammad Eldesouki

1 Introduction
Chaos might play an important role in information processing tasks in human brain
as shown in [3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20]. Some properties that might be useful
for information processing tasks are: sensitivity to initial conditions, space filling,
control, synchronization and a rich dynamics that can be accessed using different
control methods. In theory, if Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) are equipped with
chaos they will enable a large number of rich dynamic behaviors. After applying
control, these dynamics can be accessed using one of the control mechanisms such
as feedback control [14, 15, 16]. Applying such control mechanisms to discrete
chaotic neural models showed that the model would stabilize into one of many UPOs
that are embedded in the chaotic attractor.
Different chaotic neural models have been devised in recent years to explore the
possibilities of exploiting the rich dynamics that such models might provide for
information processing tasks. One of these model is the NDS model [5]. This model
is based on Rössler system [18].
Rössler is a simple chaotic system. It has been studied many times in terms of
control investigation and biological studies [9, 4] to name a few.
The origins of this model dates back to 2003 where the authors in[7] have proposed a chaotic neuron that is based on Rössler system. The idea was to exploit
the rich dynamics of the chaotic attractor to represent internal states and therefore
the chaotic attractor can represent an infinite state machine. Many experiments have
been carried out to show that using periodic input signals would cause the chaotic
attractor to stabilize to an UPO. The control mechanism used was a modified version of Pyragas[16] where the period length is considered a system variable. Small
networks of 2 − 3 neurons have been studied and the network has stabilized to one
UPO according to a periodic length that is implicitly appears in the input pattern.
The model is very interesting due to the fact that it theoretically allows an access
to a large number of UPOs, which correspond to memories in phase space, using
only single NDS neuron. In contrast, the Hopfield neural network can give only
0.15n memory size (where n is the number of neurons in the network).
The NDS model is studied in a series of works [5, 13, 1, 6, 2]. The authors in[13]
have used Lorenz attractor instead of Rössler. They have used transient computation machine to detect human motion from sequences of video frames. In another
paper[6] the authors argued that chaos may equip mammalian brain with the equivalent of kernel trick for solving hard nonlinear problems.
In [2] networks of NDS neurons have been investigated in the context of Spike
Time Dependent Plasticity (STDP) which is a property of cortical neurons. The
author has suggested that NDS neurons may own the realism of biological neural
networks; this has been supported by experiments conducted by the author.
The NDS model has been investigated thoroughly in[1]. In his investigation, the
author has studied the chaotic behavior of the model from both experimental and
analytical perspectives. Explanation of the behavior of the model has become clear
after the experimentations and the mathematical analysis and the study has shown
interesting results.

Analysis of a chaotic spiking neural model: The NDS neuron

3

In this paper some of the limitations that exist in the NDS model will be investigated. This includes tuning the model parameters for the sake of enhancing the
model capacity in terms of the number of successfully stabilized UPOs. Moreover,
the discretization method that used to to convert the continuous Rössler system into
the discrete NDS model will be discussed and compared to other well-known methods of discretization.
The paper is organized as follows: in section 2 the original Rössler model is introduced, in section 3 the NDS model is described, in section 4 a mathematical analysis of the NDS model and related discretization methods are discussed, section 5
is devoted to describe the experimentation setups that are carried out to tune the
parameters of the NDS model, section 6 includes discussions and finally section 7
concludes the paper.

2 Rössler Chaotic attractor
The Rössler system [18] is a simple dynamical system that exhibits chaos and has
only one nonlinear term in its equations. Rössler built the system in 1976; it describes chemical fluctuation and is represented by the following differential equations:
x′ = −y − u

(1)

y′ = x + a ∗ y

(2)

z′ = b + z(x − c)

(3)

Where a and b are usually fixed and c is varied and is called the control parameter.
The familiar parameter settings for the Rössler attractor are a = 0.2, b = 0.2, and
c = 5.7, and the corresponding attractor is shown in figure 1. Note that the Rössler
attractor most of the time lies in the x − y plane and comprises a disk that has a dense
number of orbits. Note also that these orbits are stretching as a result of divergence
and sensitivity to initial conditions. From time to time the Rössler attractor rises in
the z direction and then folds back to the disk which forms a fin-like shape. The
folding and stretching keep the Rössler attractor bounded in phase space.
If a trajectory of a chaotic system evolved starting from an initial point within the
attractor for a long period of time, then that trajectory will fill a bounded part of the
phase space and the attractor of the system will have a fractional dimension. This
bounded space is one of the properties of chaos, and is due to the attracting and the
repelling of the trajectory by the fixed points that govern and organize the system
behaviour. The type of these points determines the shape of the resulting attractor.
This fractal dimension can be recognized in figure 1 where the attractor is not filling
the whole space, instead it is filling part of the space.

4

Mohammad Alhawarat, Waleed Nazih and Mohammad Eldesouki

25
20

z

15
10
5
0
10
15

0

10
5

−10
y

0
−20

−5
−10

x

Fig. 1 The Rössler chaotic attractor with parameters a = 0.2, b = 0.2, and c = 5.7.

Unstable periodic orbits
An UPO is one of the dynamic behaviours that a nonlinear system exhibit in phase
space. An UPO is a repeating orbit and is unstable as a result of being attracted
and repelled by fixed points of an attractor. Chaotic attractors usually have a dense
number of UPOs which can be accessed using controlling methods.
For example figure 2 shows two UPOs of period 1 and period 2 in the Rössler
attractor when the c parameter is tuned to 2.5 and 3.5 respectively. Period 2 here
means that the UPO repeat twice in the attractor.

3 Describing the NDS model
In[5], Crook et al. have proposed a chaotic spiking neuron model that is called the
NDS neuron. The NDS neuron is a conceptual discretized model that is based on
Rössler’s chaotic system [18]. The NDS model is a modified version of Rössler’s
equations as described by equations 1- 3 in section 2.
By varying the system parameters such as period length τ , connection time delays
and initial conditions, large number of distinct orbits with varying periodicity may
be stabilised.
The NDS model simulates a novel chaotic spiking neuron and is represented by:

Analysis of a chaotic spiking neural model: The NDS neuron

5

25
Main attractor
Period one
Period two

20

z

15
10
5
0
10
15

0

10
5

−10

0
−20

y

−5
−10

x

Fig. 2 Two UPOs, one of period 1 and the other of period 2 in the Rössler chaotic attractor occurred
when parameters a, b are fixed to 0.2 and parameter c is set to 2.5 and 3.5.

1

0

0.5
γ(t)

−0.5
0
−1

u(t)

u(t)

−0.5
−1

−1.5

−1.5
−2
−2
−2.5
9500

9600

9700

9800

9900 10000

−2.5
−0.4

t

−0.2

0
x(t)

0.2

(a) Time series

(b) phase plot: u(t) vs x(t)

0.4

Fig. 3 The chaotic behaviour of a NDS neuron without input (a) the time series of u(t) and γ (t),
and (b) the phase space of x(t) versus u(t)

x(t + 1) = x(t) + b(−y(t) − u(t))

(4)

y(t + 1) = y(t) + c(x(t) + ay(t))

(5)

6

Mohammad Alhawarat, Waleed Nazih and Mohammad Eldesouki

u(t + 1) =



η0
u(t) > θ
u(t) + d(v + u(t)(−x(t)) + ku(t)) + F(t) + In(t) u(t) ≤ θ

(6)

n

F(t) =

∑ w j γ (t − τ j )

(7)

j=1

n

In(t) =

∑ I j (t)

(8)

1 u(t) > θ
0 u(t) ≤ θ

(9)

j=1

γ (t + 1) =



where x(t), y(t) and u(t) describe the internal state of the neuron, γ (t) is the neuron’s binary output, F(t) represent the feedback signals, In(t) is the external input
binary spike train, and the constants and parameters of the model are: a = v = 0.002,
b = c = 0.03, d = 0.8, k = −0.057, θ = −0.01, η0 = −0.7 and τ j is the period
length of the feedback signals.

1

0.5

0

0

u(t)

u(t)

γ(t)

0.5

−0.5

−0.5
−1

−1
−1.5
9500 9600 9700 9800 9900 10000
t
(a) Time series

−1.5
−0.2

−0.1

0
x(t)

0.1

0.2

Phase plot: u(t) vs x(t)

Fig. 4 The stabilizing of period-4 orbit of a NDS neuron with feedback connection.

The NDS model is a discrete version of the Rössler system. The main reason
to have a discrete version of the Rössler system is because spikes should occur in
discrete time. The discretization has been carried out by scaling the system variables x(t), y(t) and u(t) using different scaling constants: b, c, d. The values of these
constants have been tuned experimentally until the dynamics of the Rössler system
are preserved. If the values of these constants are large, then a system trajectory will
miss many dynamic evolutions while moving from one discrete iteration to the next.
Therefore, the time steps of the discrete system need to be very small so that a sys-

Analysis of a chaotic spiking neural model: The NDS neuron

7

tem trajectory will involve most of the dynamic evolutions of the Rössler system.
This will become clear in section 4.
The dynamics of a single NDS neuron without input is shown in Figure 3. However, when the NDS neuron is equipped with a time delayed feedback connection
then the firing pattern of the neuron can become periodic. This is shown in figure 4
where period-4 orbit is stabilised due to the feedback control mechanism F.

4 Discretization method
There are two kinds of discretization methods when converting a continuous system into a discrete one: standard and nonstandard methods. One of the nonstandard
methods is Eulers Forward differentiation method that is usually used in developing
simple simulation systems. To convert a continuous system into the corresponding
discrete one using this method, then a time step T S is used to approximate the next
value of a continuous system variable that it will evolve to. For example, equation1
when converted into a discrete equation using Eulers Forward differentiation it will
become:
x(tk+1 ) − x(tk )
= −y(tk ) − u(tk )
TS
and then solving for x(tk+1 ) gives:
ẋ(tk ) =

x(tk+1 ) = x(tk ) + T S(−y(tk ) − u(tk ))

(10)

(11)

After using the simple notation x(t) instead of x(tk ), the equation becomes:
x(t + 1) = x(t) + T S(−y(t) − u(t))

(12)

if this equation is compared with equation 4, it is obvious that the T S is chosen
to be parameter b = 0.03.
In order for the discretized function to behave similarly to the continuous one
then T S should be chosen to be small. For simulation purposes it is preferable to
choose T S according to the following formula:
TS ≤

0.1
|λ |max

(13)

Where |λ |max is the largest absolute eigenvalues for the Rössler system. According to the mathematical analysis that is carried out in [1], |λ |max = 5.68698. When
substituting this value in equation 14 it becomes:
T S ≤ 0.0176

(14)

If this compared with b it is obvious that the time step that has been chosen
doesn’t follow the simulation preferable setup.

8

Mohammad Alhawarat, Waleed Nazih and Mohammad Eldesouki

Moreover, if we look at equation 5 not only the T S is chosen to be c = 0.03 but
also a scaling factor is used to reduce the y down by the factor a = 0.002.
For the third variable in Rössler system, viz. z variable, there were many changes
because the authors of the model according to [5] wanted to invent a spiking model
that is based on a threshold variable. That variable was u which corresponds to z
in the original Rössler system. In addition, the time step T S value that is used in
the discretization process was different from those appear in equations 4-5. While
the T S = b = c = 0.03 used in the aforementioned equations, T S is chosen to be
T S = d = 0.8 in discretization of the variable u. Moreover, the authors have scaled
the constant c from 5.7 down to 0.057 and changed its sign to negative. A final
change was made to the sign of x variable from positive to negative.
All these changes made the new system to behave differently in phase space. To
summarize, the new attractor of the system has different fixed points types. According to the mathematical analysis carried out by [1], the original Rössler system fixed
points, which are two spiral saddle points, have become two spiral repellors due to
the varying scaling factors used and the change of the sign for both k and x.
These results assure that the NDS model, although has a promising results as a
spiking chaotic neuron model, it doesn’t have a strong connection to the properties
of the original Rössler attractor. This is made obvious in [1] when they concluded
that the existence of the UPOs of the NDS attractor is due to the acting forces of the
two spiral repellors and the reset mechanism. Because without the reset mechanism,
the two spiral repellors will enforce any trajectory that starts near by to evolve away
from both of them and approaches infinity.
If the Eulers Forward differentiation discretization method is used to convert the
continuous Rössler system into a discrete model, where the time step is chosen to
be T S = 0.0055, then equations 1- 3 will become:
x(t + 1) = x(t) + T S(−y(t) − u(t))

(15)

y(t + 1) = y(t) + T S(x(t) + ay(t))

(16)

u(t + 1) = u(t) + T S(b + z(t)(x(t) − c))

(17)

Where T S = 0.0055, a = 0.2, b = 0.2, and c = 5.7.
To verify if such settings will preserve the shape and properties of the original
Rössler system, then an experiment is carried out to depict the discretized system’s
attractor as shown in figure 5.
If these equations are converted into the equations of the NDS model then different steps need to be followed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Specify the value of T S, here T S is chosen to be 0.0055
Change the parameter b in equation 17 to v.
Change the parameter c in equation 17 to k.
Change the constant T S in equation 15 to b and give it the value of T S.
Change the constant T S in equation 16 to c and give it the value of T S.

Analysis of a chaotic spiking neural model: The NDS neuron

9

25
20

u(t)

15
10
5
0
10
15

0

10
5

−10
y(t)

0
−20

−5
−10

x(t)

Fig. 5 The Discrete version of Rössler attractor based on equations 15- 17

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Change the constant T S in equation 17 to d and give it the value of T S.
Change the value of a and v and give it the value of 0.2.
Change the value of k to 5.7
Change the variable z to u.
Change the sign of the term (x(t) − k) in equation 17 to become (−x(t) + k)
After applying the previous changes the equations 15- 17 become:
x(t + 1) = x(t) + b(−y(t) − u(t))

(18)

y(t + 1) = y(t) + c(x(t) + ay(t))

(19)

u(t + 1) = u(t) + d(v + u(t)(−x(t) + k))

(20)

Where a = 0.2, b = c = d = 0.0055, and k = 5.7.
Now this new model need to be verified, i.e. an experiment need to be carried out
to depict the attractor such equations will produce. Figure 6 depicts the results of
evolution of equations 18- 20.
Note that the original Rössler attractor has disappeared and this is due to the
change of sign that is made to the term (x(t) − k) in equation 20.

10

Mohammad Alhawarat, Waleed Nazih and Mohammad Eldesouki

Fig. 6 The attractor of the model that is based on equations 18- 20

5 Tuning the parameters of the NDS model
In this research, many experiments have been carried out to tune the parameters
of the NDS model. These experiments are carried out by varying one parameter
and fix all other parameters to their default values that are used in the NDS model
definition as stated in section 3. The following parameters have been considered
in these experiments: a, v, b, c, d and k because the other parameters: θ , η0 and τ j
have already been studied thoroughly in [1]. One NDS neuron has been used in the
experiments setup and random initial conditions are chosen for the values of the
variables: x, y and u. After 1000 iterations the feedback control is applied and the
experiment runs for another 9000 iterations.
To decide whether a specific setting is valid; the values of the variables of the
model are recorded and then depicted in phase space. If an attractor exist, then this
setting is considered in the valid ranges for the values of the system parameters.
Table 1 Parameter value’s ranges
Parameter
Range

a, v

b, c

d

k

0.001 − 0.1

0.01 − 0.055

0.8 − 0.9

−(0.055 − 0.58)

Analysis of a chaotic spiking neural model: The NDS neuron

11

To summarize the results; the valid ranges for the model parameters are shown
in table 1.
Table 2 Parameter settings with different selected values from the ranges appear in table1
Parameter

a, v

b, c

d

k

Setup 01
Setup 02
Setup 03
Setup 04
Setup 05
Setup 06
Setup 07
Setup 08
Setup 09
Setup 10
Setup 11
Setup 12
Setup 13
Setup 14
Setup 15

0.001
0.01
0.1
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.01
0.002
0.1

0.03
0.03
0.03
0.001
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.015
0.04

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.85
0.8
0.8

−0.057
−0.057
−0.057
−0.057
−0.057
−0.057
−0.057
−0.057
−0.057
−0.055
−0.056
−0.058
−0.055
−0.058
−0.056

1000

Average Number of successfully
stabilised orbits for 1000 runs

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Parameter settings

Fig. 7 Average Stabilized UPOs over 1000 run based on the parameter settings that appear on
table 2.

To judge weather such ranges could enhance the capacity of the attractor in terms
of the number of UPOs that it might encompass, then another experiment setup is

12

Mohammad Alhawarat, Waleed Nazih and Mohammad Eldesouki

used. Here the average number of successfully stabilized UPOs is computed over
1000 run for different parameter settings according to table 2 and the results are
depicted in figure 6.
Note that the original parameters values of the NDS model is used in setup 7. This
is done to compare the capacity of the attractor with different parameter settings
compared to the original parameter settings.
The results that are shown in figure 6 suggest that there exist better parameter
settings such as Settings 14 and Settings 05, but these will not make a significant
enhancement in the capacity of the attractor in terms of successfully stabilized UPOs
when compared to the NDS original settings (Setting 07).
Based on the results that have been attained in section 4, if a parameter setting
need to be chosen to represent the Rössler system then first a T S need to be set
according to equation 14, then a mapping between the original Rössler equations
and the NDS equations need to be performed. If T S is chosen to be 0.015, then after
carrying out the mapping between the equations of both systems; the parameter
settings become as listed in table 3
Table 3 Parameter settings for the original Rössler as discussed in section 2
Parameter

a, v

b, c

d

k

Parameter value

0.2

0.015

0.015

5.7

This setting is considered in another experiment setup, and the result is that there
is no single UPO that can be stabilized. One possible reason is that the fixed points
of the system is reserved in this case and not changed as the case in the NDS model
settings. The change in sign in the term (x − c) and the different nested scaling
factors that are applied to the original Rössler equation have led to change in the
types and properties of the fixed points as shown in [1].
This can be proved easily because when multiplying an equation with a constant
and then trying to find its roots, then it should be set to zero. Therefore, the constant
will have no effect on the resulted roots as dividing both sides by constant will
eliminate the constant from the left hand side and will not affect zero in the right
hand side.

6 Discussion
The results of both experimentations and mathematical analysis of the discretization
method suggest that the NDS model has weak connections to the original Rössler
system. This is due to many factors. Firstly, the discretization process that is used in
devising the NDS equations does not follow any known discretization method where
different discretization time steps and scaling factors are used. Secondly, Changing
the sign of the term (x(t) − k) that appears in equation 20 made the system attractor

Analysis of a chaotic spiking neural model: The NDS neuron

13

to disappear and approach infinity instead. These changes affected both the shape
and properties of the original Rössler attractor.
It is important here to stress that even before adding the feedback signal, the input
signals and the reset mechanism to the system equations, the attractor has become
completely different from the original Rössler attractor. This assure that the NDS
model has weak connections to the Rössler model and has different fixed points,
eigenvalues and eigenvectors as demonstrated in [1].
The results also suggest that both the reset mechanism and the feedback signal
are the major ingredients for the NDS model to work and to be stabilised to one of
its available UPOs.
The results of experimental setups made to tune the NDS parameters suggest that
there exist better parameter settings but will not enhance the capacity of the attractor
in terms of successfully stabilized UPOs significantly when compared to the NDS
original settings.
Also, the settings of the Rössler model when used in the NDS model resulted in
no stabilized UPOs because the discretization method that is used to build the NDS
model has led to changes in the shape and properties of the Rössler attractor.
It is important to mention that the main factors that affect the shape and properties
of the original Rössler attractor are both scaling the parameters of the model with
different values and the change in sign that is made to the term (x(t)−k) that appears
in equation 20.

7 Conclusion
One chaotic model, viz., the NDS model has been studied in this paper. NDS is one
of different chaotic models that are devised in recent years to explore the possibilities of exploiting the rich dynamics that such models might provide for carrying out
information processing tasks.
The NDS model might be stabilized to a large number of UPOs. These UPOs
can be stabilised using a feedback control mechanism. The NDS model is a modified version of Rössler chaotic system. The rich dynamics of the Rössler system is
supposed to be inherited by the NDS model. This is suggested by the large number
of UPOs that can be stabilised as shown in figure 3.
However, when the discretization methods are discussed in this paper, it is shown
that the method that is used to discretize the original Rössler equations in devising
the NDS equations is not a known discretization method. This along with the change
in sign in the term u(t)x(t)− ku(t)) has affected the shape and properties of the NDS
attractor when compared with its origin: the Rössler attractor.
Different experimental setups have been prepared and performed to tune the NDS
model parameters. The results of these experimentations have revealed the valid
ranges of the parameters of the model. Also, other experimentations have shown
different capacities for the NDS attractor in terms of the number of stabilized UPOs
with different parameter settings.

14

Mohammad Alhawarat, Waleed Nazih and Mohammad Eldesouki

The results attained in this paper suggest that there are weak relationships between the NDS and the Rössler models. However, the NDS attractor encompasses
large number of UPOs as shown in figure 7. These and the wide range of dynamic
behaviours may be exploited to carry out information processing tasks.
Acknowledgements This work was supported by Salman Bin Abdulaziz University in KSA under
grant 40/H/1432. I’m grateful to this support and would like to thank the deanship of scientific
research at the university, represented by Dr. Abdullah Alqahtani at that time.

References
1. Alhawarat, M.O.I.: Learning and memory in chaotic spiking neural models. Ph.D. thesis,
Oxford Brookes University (2007)
2. Aoun, M.: Stdp within nds neurons. In: Advances in Neural Networks - ISNN 2010, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6063, pp. 33–43. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2010)
3. Babloyantz, A., Lourenço, C.: Brain chaos and computation. International Journal of Neural
Systems 7, 461–471 (1996)
4. Bershadskii, A., Ikegaya, Y.: Chaotic neuron clock.
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 44(45), 342 – 347 (2011).
DOI 10.1016/j.chaos.2011.03.001.
URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007791100035X
5. Crook, N., Goh, W., Hawarat, M.: The nonlinear dynamic state neuron. In: M. Verleysen (ed.) ESANN, pp. 37–42. 13th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks
(ESANN’2005), Bruges, Belgium (2005)
6. Crook, N., Goh, W.J.: Nonlinear transient computation as a potential ”kernel trick” in cortical
processing. Biosystems 94(1-2), 55–59 (2008)
7. Crook, N., olde Scheper, T., Pathirana, V.: Self organised dynamic recognition states for
chaotic neural networks. Information Sciences 150(1-2), 59–75 (2003)
8. Destexhe, A.: Oscillations, complex spatiotemporal behavior, and information transport in
networks of excitatory and inhibitory neurons. Physical Review E 50(2), 1594–1606 (1994)
9. Ding, Y., Jiang, W., Wang, H.: Delayed feedback control and bifurcation analysis of rossler
chaotic system. Nonlinear Dynamics 61, 707–715 (2010). DOI 10.1007/s11071-010-9681-y.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11071-010-9681-y
10. Freeman, W.: How Brains Make up their Minds. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London (1999)
11. Freeman, W.: A proposed name for aperiodic brain activity: stochastic chaos. Neural Networks
13(1), 11–13 (2000)
12. Freeman, W., Barrie, J.: Chaotic oscillations and the genesis of meaning in cerebral cortex.
Temporal Coding in the Brain pp. 13–37 (1994)
13. Goh, W., Crook, N.: Pattern recognition using chaotic transients. In: 15th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks (ESANN-2007), pp. 7–12 (2007)
14. Ott, E., Grebogi, C., Yorke, J.A.: Controlling chaos. Physical Review Letters 64, 1196–1199
(1990)
15. Pasemann, F., Stollenwerk, N.: Attractor switching by neural control of chaotic neurodynamics. Network: Computational Neural Systems 9(4), 549–561 (1998)
16. Pyragas, K.: Continuous control of chaos, by self-controlling feedback. Physics Letters A
170, 421–428 (1992)
17. Rapp, P.E.: Chaos in the neurosciences: Cautionary tales from the frontier. Biologist 40(2),
89–94 (1993)
18. Rössler, O.E.: An equation for continuous chaos. Physics Letters A 57(5), 397–398 (1976)
19. Theiler, J.: On the evidence for low-dimensional chaos in an epileptic electroencephalogram.
Physics Letters A 196, 335–341 (1995)

Analysis of a chaotic spiking neural model: The NDS neuron

15

20. Wu, Y.T., Shyu, K.K., Chen, T.R., Guo, W.Y.: Using three-dimensional fractal dimension to analyze the complexity of fetal cortical surface from magnetic resonance images. Nonlinear Dynamics 58, 745–752 (2009). DOI 10.1007/s11071-009-9515-y. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11071-009-9515-y

