Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.

Homogeneous Spiking Neuromorphic System
for Real-World Pattern Recognition
Xinyu Wu, Student Member, IEEE, Vishal Saxena, Member, IEEE, and Kehan Zhu


using similar motifs. Neurons perform computation by
propagating spikes and storing memories in the relative
strengths of their synapses as well as their interconnectivities.
By repeating such a simple structure of neurons and synapses, a
biological brain realizes a very energy-efficient computer.
Inspired by such architecture, artificial neural networks
(ANNs) have been developed and achieved remarkable success
in a few specific applications, but historically require hardware
resource intensive training methods (such as the gradient-based
back-propagation algorithms) on conventional computers, and
therefore making them inefficient computationally and in
energy use. By exploiting parallel graphical processing units
(GPUs) or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), power
consumption of neural networks has been reduced by several
orders of magnitude [1], which yet remains far higher than their
biological counterparts.
In the past decade, the discovery of spike-timing-dependentplasticity (STDP) [2]–[8] has opened new avenues in neural
network research. Theoretical studies have suggested STDP
can be used to train spiking neural networks (SNNs) in-situ
without trading-off their parallelism [9]–[12]. Further,
nano-scale memristive devices have demonstrated biologically
plausible STDP behavior in several experiments [13]–[17], and
therefore have emerged as an ideal candidate for electrical
synapses. To this end, hybrid CMOS-memristor analog
very-large-scale integrated (VLSI) circuits have been proposed
[18]–[22] to achieve dense integration of CMOS neurons and
memristors for brain-inspired computing chips by leveraging
the contemporary nanometer silicon processing technology.
Researchers have recently demonstrated pattern recognition
applications on spiking neuromorphic systems (with memristor
synapses) [23]–[32] using leaky integrate-and-fire neurons
(IFNs). Most of these systems either require extra training
circuitry attached to the synapses (thus eliminating most of the
density advantages gained by using memristors), or different
waveforms for pre- and post-synaptic spikes (thus introducing
undesirable circuit - overhead which significantly limit power
and area budget of a large-scale neuromorphic system). There
have been a few CMOS IFN designs that attempt to
accommodate memristor synapses and in-situ synaptic
plasticity together. An asynchronous IFN architecture was
proposed in [33], [34], which provided current summing nodes,
and propagated same-shape spikes in both the forward and
backward directions. Another CMOS IFN with a current
conveyor was implemented to drive the memristor as excitatory

Abstract—A neuromorphic chip that combines CMOS analog
spiking neurons and memristive synapses offers a promising
solution to brain-inspired computing, as it can provide massive
neural network parallelism and density. Previous hybrid analog
CMOS-memristor approaches required extensive CMOS
circuitry for training, and thus eliminated most of the density
advantages gained by the adoption of memristor synapses.
Further, they used different waveforms for pre and post-synaptic
spikes that added undesirable circuit overhead. Here we describe
a hardware architecture that can feature a large number of
memristor synapses to learn real-world patterns. We present a
versatile CMOS neuron that combines integrate-and-fire
behavior, drives passive memristors and implements competitive
learning in a compact circuit module, and enables in-situ
plasticity in the memristor synapses. We demonstrate
handwritten-digits recognition using the proposed architecture
using transistor-level circuit simulations. As the described
neuromorphic architecture is homogeneous, it realizes a
fundamental building block for large-scale energy-efficient
brain-inspired silicon chips that could lead to next-generation
cognitive computing.
Index Terms—Neuromorphic, Silicon Neuron, Memristor,
Resistive Memory, Spike-Timing Dependent Plasticity, Spiking
Neural Network, Machine Learning, Brain-Inspired Computing

I. INTRODUCTION

T

HE human brain is a very energy-efficient computing
machine: tasks like perception, object recognition, speech
recognition and language translation are trivial to a human
brain; whereas modern machines can do such tasks, but require
orders of magnitude more energy, as well as specialized
programming. Massive parallelism is one of the reasons our
brains are so effective in the above mentioned decision-making
tasks. Radically different from today’s predominant von
Neumann computers (memories and processing elements are
separated), a biological brain stores memory and computes

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for
publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015. Personal use is permitted, but
republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under the
Grant CCF-1320987. The work of X. Wu and K. Zhu are supported in part by
the graduate fellowship of Boise State University.
The authors are with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department,
Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725, USA (e-mail: xinyuwu@u.boisestate.
edu; vishalsaxena@boisestate.edu; kehanzhu@u.boisestate.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552.

1

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
A

B

C

Vspk,in

Inhibitive
Connection
Synapse
Neuron
Dendrites
Synapse

Soma

Vmem

t3
Vthr

Neuron

Δw
Pre
Post
Δt<0

t2

Neuro
n

Axon
Vmem

t1
Vmem

From
Previous
Neurons

Vspk, out
Pre
Post
Δt>0
0Δt = t

Δt

post–

tpre

Synaptic
placiticity

Synapse
Vspk,in
Vspk, out
tfire

Fig. 1. (A) Simplified diagram of a typical biological neural cell. Soma receives synaptic signals from other neurons through its dendrites, and axon propagates
signals to other neurons. A synapse is a contact between the axon of one neuron and a dendrite of another. Soma maintains a voltage gradient across neuron
membrane. If the voltage changes by a large enough amount, an action potential pulse, called spike, is generated, then travels along the axon, and eventually
activates synaptic connections with other cells when it arrives. (B) A neuromorphic network models the spiking neural network, and (C) Working mechanism of a
typical integrate and firing neuron. The neuron maintains membrane voltage Vmem; once Vmem crosses a firing threshold Vthr, the neuron fires and sends a spike Vspk,out
to pre and post-synaptic neurons which are connected to it. Synaptic strength, is also called synaptic weight w, can be modulated by the pre- and post-synaptic
spikes, which is called synaptic plasticity. The experimental example of pair-wise STDP learning curve shown in the circle was redrawn from [3].

or inhibitory synapse [35], [36]. However, none of them
supports pattern classification directly owing to the lack of a
mechanism for making decisions when employed in a neural
network. Moreover, the consideration of large current drive
capability for a massive number of passive memristor synapses
was absent in these designs.
In this paper, we describe a neuromorphic architecture that
can scale to a large number of memristor synapses to learn
real-world patterns. To do so, a versatile CMOS spiking IFN
was developed. A winner-takes-all (WTA) interface is
embedded to empower competitive learning with a shared
WTA bus topology among local neurons. A dynamic powering
scheme is used to achieve large current drive capability without
compromising the energy-efficiency. By exploiting a
reconfigurable architecture inspired by [34], the neuron
accommodates symmetric forward and backward propagation
of spikes for online STDP. With a new tri-mode operation, the
neuron encapsulates all functions with a single OpAmp in a
very compact circuit, while allowing one-terminal connectivity
between the neuron and a synapse. Consequently, it enables a
simple repeating homogenous structure with a fully
asynchronous communication protocol, and thus facilitates
scaling-up to large-scale neuromorphic chips. Employing an
industry-standard circuit simulator, we show online STDP
learning in memristors and large current drive capability with
high energy-efficiency of the proposed neuron, and
demonstrate a handwritten-digits recognition application using
the proposed architecture.
The rest of this article is organized as follows: Section II
introduces the system architecture and building blocks needed
to realize a homogeneous neuromorphic system; Section III
proposes the CMOS neuron topology and explains how it
works as a fundamental information processing unit; Section
IV presents a pattern recognition application using the
proposed system; Section V demonstrates operations of the
proposed CMOS neuron, STDP learning in memristors and an

8×8 handwritten-digits recognition; finally, Section VI
discusses the limitations and future challenges.
II. HOMOGENEOUS NEUROMORPHIC SYSTEM
Fig. 1B shows a basic neuromorphic unit which comprises
several synapses and a neuron block. It mimics a biological
neuron as shown in Fig. 1A, where the synapse receives spikes
from other neurons and converts them into currents according
to their synaptic strength. The neuron block performs
spatio-temporal integration of the spikes and generates output
spikes (or action potentials) similar to the operation of a neuron
soma (Fig. 1C). Further, the dendrites and axons are
implemented using interconnect circuits which model the
spiking-signal propagation through neuronal fibers and used to
realize larger signal processing networks [37].
A. Memristor as Synapse
The memristor was first conceptually conceived in 1971 by
Leon Chua [30] from a circuit theory perspective. In theory, a
memristor is a two-terminal device that can retain an internal
analog state by the value of its resistance *, or conductance, that
depends upon on the history of the applied voltage and thus the
current flowing through the device. Since the conductance of a
memristor can be incrementally increased or decreased by
controlling the flux through it, it is a potential candidate for
realizing electronic equivalent of biological synapses.
However, memristor based neural networks have only begun to
be explored due to the recent emergence of nano-scale
memristor devices.
Memristance has recently been demonstrated in nano-scale
*

Memristance, resistance, conductance, synaptic weight and synaptic strength
are the different descriptions for the same character of a memristor synapse. For
convenience, we use conductance, which is proportional to synaptic weight as
used in computer science or synaptic strength as used in neuroscience, when we
refer to memristor device.

2

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
A

B

Vpre

Δw or ΔGmr

C

Vpre

d
Doped

Pre
Post

Undoped

Vpost

Δt>0

t

Vpost

Δt<0

t

Pre
Post

Δt<0

Δt>0

L
Δt

0
t

Vnet=Vpost-Vpre

t

Vnet=Vpost-Vpre

Δt = tpost–tpre
vp
Rond/L

vn

Roff(1-d/L)
tpre

vp
t

tpost

vn

tpre

t

tpost

Fig. 2. (A) A thin-film memristor is modeled as two resistors in series, one is undoped with high resistance Roff and the other is doped thus having low resistance Ron.
To increase the depth of doped region, ions are forced into the film with a potential over programming threshold, Vp, on the two electrodes; conversely, to reduce the
depth of doped region, ions are removed from the film with an opposite potential over erasing threshold Vn. (B) Pre- and post-synaptic spikes with relative arriving
time Δt produce a potential Vnet =Vpost-Vpre over a synapse. Vnet over a threshold Vp or Vn leads into synaptic potentiation or depression, which for a memristor is
equivalent to conductance increment and decrement respectively, caused by doping depth modulation. (C) A example of pairwise STDP learning window Δw
plotted as a function of Δt. Several nano-scale memristors demonstrated similar function with conductance change denoted as ΔGm.

two-terminal devices using various material systems [13]–[19],
[38]–[42]. Fig. 2A schematically shows a highly simplified
model of thin-film memristors, in which a memristor is
composed of two resistors in series, one is un-doped with high
resistance and the other is doped thus having low resistance.
The total thickness of the film L is separated into doped and
un-doped regions, and the total resistance is the sum of the two
regions. The average length of the doped region is taken as a
state variable d. To increase the depth of the doped region, ions
are forced into the film with a potential over the threshold Vp
across two electrodes; on the contrary, to reduce the depth of
the doped region-, ions are removed from the film with an
opposite potential which exceeds the erasing threshold Vn. This
modulation of the doping depth allows the control of the
conductance of a memristor. It should be noted that the above
two-resistor model is a simple and convenient way of
describing a memristor. In the dielectric region of a physical
memristor device, the doping depth is typically represented by
complex metallic filament structures. There exist a multitude of
models that aim to correspond to the physics/chemistry behind
the conductance change in memristors of various types [18],
[19], [43], [44]. In this work, a much more sophisticated device
model pertinent to physical memristors, from [44], was used for
circuit simulation.
Several nano-scale memristors in literature have shown that
their conductance modification characteristics are similar to the
STDP rule [13]–[17], [45], and therefore act as ideal electrical
synapses for brain-inspired computing. STDP states that the
synaptic weight w is modulated according to the relative timing
of the pre- and post-synaptic neuron firing. As illustrated in Fig.
2B, a spike pair with the pre-synaptic spike arrives before the
post-synaptic spike results in increasing the synaptic strength
(or potentiation); a pre-synaptic spike after a post-synaptic
spike results in decreasing the synaptic strength (or depression).
Changes of the synaptic weight plotted as a function of the
relative arrival timing of the post-synaptic spike with respect to
the pre-synaptic spike is called the STDP function or learning
window. A popular choice for the STDP function Δw is shown

in Eq. 1, and the corresponding plot is shown in Fig 2C
∆𝑤 = {

𝐴+ 𝑒 −∆𝑡 /𝜏+ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ∆𝑡 > 0
𝐴− 𝑒 ∆𝑡 /𝜏− 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ∆𝑡 < 0

(1)

A theoretical analysis in [33] illustrated a method to relate Δw
and memristor characteristics, by mapping the over-threshold
portion of Vnet (the shaded area of the shaded regions in Fig 2B)
to the change in memristance through an ideal memristor
model. However, physical devices have complicated physical
and/or
electro-chemical
mechanisms.
Consequently,
researchers typically plot a memristor’s conductance ΔGmr
versus Δt either from simulations or experimental results to
show the STDP learning function.
Nano-scale
memristors
have
shown
low-energy
consumption to change their states and very compact layout
footprint [18], [19], [46]. Recent advances even reported these
two merits in sub-pJ order [47], and 10-nm range [48]
respectively. Thus, it is possible to yield a brain-inspired
machine by cohesively packing millions of memristor synapses
and thousands of CMOS neurons on a stamp-size silicon chip
while consuming power density which is of the same order as a
human brain (for a nominal 1kHz spiking rate).
B. Silicon Neuron
Since neuromorphic engineering emerged in 1980s [49],
several silicon neuron design styles have appeared in literature.
These designs model certain aspects of biological neurons
[50]–[57]. However, most of them focus on faithfully modeling
the ionic channel dynamics in biological spiking neurons, and
require the synapses to act as controlled current sources. As a
result, they consume large silicon area, and therefore are not
amenable for large-scale neuromorphic networks with a
massive number of silicon neurons.
The emergence of nano-scale memristors has triggered a
growing interest in integrating these devices with silicon
neurons to realize novel neuromorphic systems [23]–[32]. In
these systems, researchers have used bio-inspired leaky
3

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
A

B
Vleaky

1

Фf=0

SW1 Ф =0
d
Vthr
Vden

Av

Spike
Generator

WTA bus

Inhibitory connection
Excitatory connection

Output Layer

Mleaky
Фd=1
SW2

Cmem

C

Vrefr Vrest

Vaxon

1 SW3

WTA bus

Explicit one-one inhibitory connections

Vcpr

Vmem

Input Layer

Фd
Фi Phase
Фf Bus
Ф1 Controller
Interface
Ф2
Фc

WTA Bus

Forward
spike

Vtch
Vmode
Vrst
Implicit inhibition via shared WTA bus

Vwtab

Pre-synaptic
neuron

Backward
spike

Memristor Post-synaptic
synapse
neuron

Fig. 3. (A) Diagram of the proposed leaky IFN. It includes integrate-and-fire, WTA interface, STDP-compatible spike generation, large current driving ability and
dynamic powering in a compact circuit topology with a reconfigurable architecture based on a single OpAmp. (B) A competitive learning network uses explicit
one-on-one inhibitory connections among competitive units; whereas the same function can be implemented with implicit inhibition on a shared WTA bus. (C) A
layer of spiking neural network with memristor synapses organized in crossbar. Each input and output neuron pair is connected with a two-terminal memristor
synapse. An STDP spike pair is used to update synaptic weight online without extra training circuitry. The WTA bus shared among output neurons enables the local
competitive learning.

doesn’t correspond to its biological counterparts. Moreover,
these neurons don’t provide an energy-efficient driving
capability to interface with a large number of memristor
synapses, which is generally desired in mimicking biological
neural networks, e.g. a cerebellar Purkinje cell needs to form up
to 200,000 synaptic connections [58], or for real-world pattern
recognition applications, e.g. MNIST patterns have 784 pixels
[59]. For instance, when a neuron drives 1000 memristor
synapses, each of them having 1MΩ resistance, it requires 1mA
current to sustain a 1V spike amplitude resulting in 1mW
instantaneous power consumption. Therefore, a highly-scalable
driver circuit solution for memristor synapses while avoiding
large circuit overhead is truly desired [22].
A silicon neuron amenable to build large-scale brain-inspired
neuromorphic system with massive memristor synapses should:

integrate-and-fire neuron (IFN) models as an alternative to the
complex bio-mimetic neuron models to implement large
networks of interconnected spiking neurons. The IFN model is
a single-compartment model, wherein the entire cell is
abstracted as a single membrane capacitance Cm which sums
each current Ii(t) flowing into the neuron through the ith
synapse, and a membrane resistance Rm which causes passive
leakage of a membrane current Vm(t) / Rm as
𝐶𝑚

𝑑𝑉𝑚
𝑑𝑡

= ∑𝑖 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡) −

𝑉𝑚 (𝑡)
𝑅𝑚

.

(2)

The IFN model captures the transient spiking behavior of the
neuron with reasonable accuracy for use in learning while
requiring a relative low number of transistors for its
implementation. Currently, the IFNs used in memristor
neuromorphic systems need either extra training circuitry
attached to memristor synapses (thus eliminating most of the
density advantages gained by using memristor synapses) or
employ different waveforms for pre- and post-synaptic spikes
(thus introducing undesirable circuit overhead which limits
power and area budget of a large-scale neuromorphic system).
There have been a very few CMOS IFN designs attempting to
address above problems in order to accommodate memristor
synapses with in-situ synaptic plasticity ability. In [33], the
authors proposed a reconfigurable IFN architecture which
provided a current summing node to accommodate memristors.
In [34], an architecture with a STDP-compatible spike
generator was proposed, which enables online STDP by
propagating same-shape spikes in both the forward and
backward directions. In [35] a CMOS IFN with a current
conveyor was designed to drive memristor as either an
excitatory or an inhibitory synapse, and [36] shows the
measurement results from a ferroelectric memristor. However,
none of them can be directly employed to form a learning
system because a decision making ability (e.g. competitive
learning) was absent in these neurons. They require extra
decision circuitry which may need a large silicon area and

(1) Connect to a synapse at one terminal only;
(2) Sustain a fixed voltage across the synapse in the absence
of spikes;
(3) Provide a current summing node to sense incoming
spikes;
(4) Provide large current flowing into synapses when firing;
(5) Fire a suitable waveform to enable STDP in the synapse;
(6) Enable pattern learning through decision-making
ability;
(7) Be compact and energy-efficient.
Fig. 3A shows the schematic of our proposed CMOS neuron
that fulfills all of the above criteria. This circuit effectively
combines an OpAmp-based integrator, an STDP-compatible
spike generator, a WTA interface and a control circuit for
reconfiguration. By employing tri-mode operation, it provides a
unique port, Vden, to sum the incoming currents and to propagate
post-synaptic spikes, and another port Vaxon to propagate
pre-synaptic spikes. These two ports also sustain a fixed
voltage Vrefr during integration and membrane capacitor
discharge, while driving a specific STDP-compatible
waveform with a large current to enable online synaptic
4

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
Leaky Integrator

A
Vleaky

Voltage Buffer

B

Vrefr Vrest

Vleaky

Discharging

C

Vrefr Vrest

Vleaky

Vrefr Vrest

Vrefr

Vrefr
Mleaky

Av

Vrefr

Фd=1

Cmem

SW2
SW1

Vrefr

Spike
Generator

Av

Cmem

Vrefr

Фf Bus
Interface
Фc

Vtch
Vmode
Vrst

Spike
Generator

Av

Av

Фd=1

Фd=1

Cmem

SW2

0

0

Фf=1 SW3

Vthr
Vden

Фd
Фi
Ф1 Phase
Controller
Ф2

SW2
SW1

Vaxon

Vcpr

Mleaky

Фd=1

Фf=0

Vmem

Av

Mleaky

1
Фd=0

1 SW3

Vthr
Vden

Vthr
Vmem

Vrefr

Фd
Фi
Ф1 Phase
Controller
Ф2

Vwtab

Фf Bus
Interface
Фc

Vwtab

Vtch
Vmode
Vrst

Фd=1
0

Фf=0
1 SW3

Vthr
Vden

Vcpr

Vmem

SW1

Vaxon

Vrefr

Spike
Generator

Av

Vaxon

Vcpr

Vmem

Фd
Фi
Ф1 Phase
Controller
Ф2

Фf Bus
Interface

Фc

Vtch
Vmode
Vrst

Vwtab

Fig. 4. Tri-mode operation of the proposed leaky integrate-and-fire neuron (A) Integration mode: The OpAmp is configured as a negative integrator to sum current
on Cmem causing the membrane potential Vmem to move down until its crosses a firing threshold voltage Vthr. Without an input current, voltages at the two inputs of the
OpAmp are held at Vrefr. Post-synapses are disconnected from the neuron. (B) Firing mode: phase signals Φi, Φf, Φ1 and Φ2 control the spike generator to create a
STDP-compatible spike Vspk which is buffered and driven by the OpAmp. Then, the spike propagates in both backward and forward directions to pre-synapses and
post-synapses respectively. The activation of either Vcpr or Vtch causes a firing event, which is also presented on the WTA bus by pulling-up the bus with Vwtab. (C)
Inhibitive discharge mode: Φd is active to discharge the Cmem when an active Vwtab signal is detected on the WTA bus. The OpAmp is configured as a low-power
buffer with Φi is active and Φf is inactive. Also, the neuron is isolated from the post-synapses.

plasticity in the large number of memristor synapses connected
in parallel. Moreover, an inhibitive discharge mode with a
shared WTA bus enables competitive learning among local
neurons. All of these functions are assembled around a single
CMOS OpAmp that is dynamically biased to supply large
current only when driving the synapses while maintaining low
power consumption during the rest of the time. Further, the
neuron functions in a fully asynchronous manner consuming
dynamic power only when computation is occurring. The
details of the neuron circuit and its operation will be discussed
in section III.

is allowed to present an inhibitive signal only if there is no
spike event on the shared bus; otherwise, it discharges and
suppresses potential firing. The detailed circuit realization of
the WTA bus will be discussed in section III.
It is worth noting that the proposed global reset mechanism
differs from the dynamics of traditional neural networks, in
which, typically, the firing of one neuron in a WTA network
will either reduce the membrane potential (and thus spiking
probability) of other neurons or prevent firing in a short time
window. The implications to the computational aspects of the
network dynamics with this global reset scheme can be
investigated in further theoretical studies.

C. Local Competitive Learning
STDP enables online synaptic weight modification, but it
doesn’t automatically lead to network learning behavior.
Conventional
ANNs
employ
a
gradient-based
back-propagation algorithm to train a network. Although the
same technique can be applied to SNNs as well [60], a gradient
computation requires very sophisticated hardware and therefore
is infeasible for a massively parallel system. In neuroscience
studies, competitive learning has been observed and used to
demonstrate synaptic plasticity directly together with STDP
[12], [61]–[63], whereas no extra training circuitry is required.
Competitive learning is also known as the winner-takes-all
(WTA) algorithm whereby when a neuron fires, it inhibits its
neighbors’ from firing to prevent from changing their weight.
WTA uses a topology where an inhibit signal can be
communicated to every other neuron in the network once it
fires, at the same time, each neuron “listens” the inhibit signal
from other neurons, as shown in Fig. 3B. However, such an
explicit inhibition is resource hungry and difficult to scale-up in
neuromorphic hardware, especially if the number of competing
neuron units is large. Instead, an implicit inhibition with a
bus-like operation is very efficient: several local neurons are
connected to one shared bus together, and every neuron can
monitor the bus status before its firing. In this scheme, a neuron

D. Crossbar Networks
To build our proposed neuromorphic system, CMOS
neurons and memristor synapses are organized in a crossbar
network [64], [65], as shown in Fig. 3C. In this architecture,
each input neuron is connected to another output neuron with a
two terminal memristor to form a matrix-like connection for
each crossbar layer. By cascading and/or stacking crossbars, a
large-scale system can be constructed. Semiconductor
technologies now offer vertical integration capability using
through silicon via (TSV) for multiple chips and 3D packages
[66].
As discussed, the proposed neuromorphic system
architecture uses only two basic building blocks; a
two-terminal memristor and a versatile CMOS neuron, which
works in fully asynchronous manner. As they form a simple
one-node contact, a large-scale neuromorphic system for
brain-inspired computing can be potentially realized by
spatially repeating and/or hierarchically stacking the proposed
WTA circuit motif of neurons and crossbar synapses.
III. THE DESIGN OF CMOS NEURON
A silicon neuron is the most critical component needed to
5

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
B

A

C

Vspk
Va+

Vdd

Φ1

Vwtab
Vmode
Vcpr
Vtch
Vrst
Φc

Tri-state
Buffer

Delay

Φd
Q

D
S

Va+

Va-

Vspk

Φi

Vrefr

Φ1

tail+
Φ2
tail-

Φ2

Vrefr

Φf

t
Spike Generator

slope

Va-

Fig. 5. (A) The proposed asynchronous WTA bus interface circuit. (B) STDP-compatible spike generator circuit. It produces (C) a spike with rectangular positive
tail and ramping up negative tail. The spike shape is defined by parameters Va+, Va-, tail+, tail- and slope.

bus into “discharge mode”. In the latter scenario, Vmode
indicates a supervised learning procedure and disables
competition among the neurons. Then, with a teaching signal
Vtch, the neuron is forced to fire a spike and drives it into
pre-synapses, and consequently modulates the synaptic weights
under the STDP learning rule. For stable operation, only one
Vtch of a neuron is active at a time in order to avoid conflict.
(3) The inhibitive discharge mode is shown in Fig. 4C. In this
mode, switch SW1 is closed, SW2 connects Vrefr to discharge
Cmem, and SW3 is disconnected from the OpAmp output to
isolate the neuron from the post-synapses.

realize a neural network on a chip, while the synapses and
crossbar structure are relatively simple in terms of architectural
complexity. In our proposed neuron, the tri-mode operation,
WTA bus, dynamic powering and STDP-compatible spike
generation make up the key roles to realize a cohesive
architecture.
A. Tri-mode Operation
A spiking silicon neuron for competitive learning should
perform three major functions: (1) current summing and
integration, (2) firing when membrane potential crosses a
threshold and driving resistive loads, and (3) providing an
inhibitive discharge. These three functions are performed with
a single OpAmp which is a key advantage of our neuron.
(1) The integration mode is shown in Fig. 4A. In this mode,
switch SW1 connects the “membrane” capacitor Cmem with the
output of the OpAmp, SW 2 is open, and SW3 connects
post-synapses to a resting voltage Vrest which can be either
equal to Vrefr or can be floated. Φd and Φf are asynchronous
phase signals to control the switches. As the spike generator is
designed to hold a voltage to the refractory potential Vrefr during
the non-firing time, the OpAmp’s positive port is set to Vrefr.
Under this configuration, the OpAmp realizes a leaky
integrator; currents flowing from the pre-synapses are summed
at Vden and charge the capacitor Cmem resulting in “membrane
potential” Vmem, with the voltage leak-rate controlled by a triode
transistor Mleaky. Vmem moves down as more charge is stored on
Cmem, and triggers a reconfiguration event of the neuron upon
reaching the firing threshold Vthr.
(2) The firing mode is shown in Fig. 4B. In this mode, switch
SW2 is closed and the switch SW3 bridges the OpAmp output to
post-synapses. The OpAmp is now reconfigured as a voltage
buffer. The STDP-compatible spike generator creates the
required action potential waveform Vspk and relays it to the
positive port of the OpAmp. Then, both the pre-synapses and
post-synapses are shorted to the buffer’s output. The neuron
propagates spikes in the backward direction from Vden which is
the same port of current summing. The pre-synaptic spikes are
driven in the forward direction on Vaxon to the post-synapses.
This firing-mode occurs either when the neuron wins the
first-to-fire competition among the local neurons connected to a
WTA bus, or during supervised learning. In the former
scenario, the winning neuron presents a firing signal on the
WTA bus noted as Vwtab, and forces other neurons on the same

B. Dynamic Powering
The energy-efficiency of the neuron is tied to the above
discussed tri-mode operation. For dynamic powering, a
two-stage OpAmp is designed with the output stage split into a
major branch and a minor branch. The major branch provides
large current driving capability; while the minor low-power
branch works with the first stage to provide the desired gain.
Two complementary signals Φi and Φf are used to bias the
OpAmp in low-power configuration by disabling the major
branch during integration and discharging modes, while
enabling it to drive large currents in the firing mode. In this
work, we modified a compact folded-cascode topology [67]
with an embedded split class-AB driver to realize a
dynamically powered OpAmp.
C. WTA Bus Interface
Fig. 5A shows a proposed WTA bus interface that can be
embedded in the neuron with a compact implementation, and is
amenable to scale-up. The bus interface works in an
asynchronous manner. A tri-state buffer is employed to isolate
the neuron output from the bus during the non-firing state, and a
pulled-up bus when a neuron fires. During normal operation,
the interface circuit monitors the bus status. A firing event
presented as logic high on the bus activates Φd and forces the
neuron to switch to the discharge mode. When a potential firing
is triggered by either the comparator output Vcpr or the
supervised learning signal Vtch, the D-flip-flop (DFF) locks-in
the instant bus state and passes it to Φf. The logic low of Φf,
implying an existing firing event of another neuron, will
consequently suppress neuron from firing; on the contrary, the
logic high of Φf gives a green-light to switch the local neuron to
the firing mode, and broadcasts an inhibitive signal via the
shared bus. When the firing is finished, the DFF state is cleared.
6

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.

...

In a trained network, test patterns can be classified without a
teaching signal Vtch. Output neurons sum the currents flowing
into them and fire according to the WTA competition to
indicate the class of an input pattern. Such a pattern recognition
system realizes real-time performance thanks to its
straightforward event-driven parallel operation.
The proposed system is compatible with the spiking neural
network model as described in [12], [61], [62]. Unsupervised
learning of patterns can also be realized with the same circuit.

WTA

V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Image

i×j Input
Network

i×j Input
Neuron Matrix

i×j×n Synaptic
Network

n Output
Neurons

A. Simulation Setup
The circuits were designed using the Cadence analog design
environment and the simulations were carried out with the
Spectre circuit simulator.
We employed a device model in [44] that has been matched
to multiple physical memristors, and resistive random access
memory characterization results.
The silicon neuron was realized with an IBM 180nm
standard CMOS process. A two-stage OpAmp was used with
folded-cascode topology for the first stage followed by a
dynamically biased class-AB output stage. With an equivalent
load of 1kΩ in parallel with 20pF, the OpAmp has 39 dB DC
gain, 3V/µs slew rate and 5MHz unity-gain frequency in
integration mode; and 60dB DC gain, 15MHz unit gain
frequency and 15V/µs slew rate in firing mode. The
STDP-compatible pulse generator circuit was designed with
digital configurability to allow interfacing with a broad range of
memristors. Such tunability may be also useful in the circuit
implementation to compensate for the memristor parameter
variations. For instance, spike parameters Va+ = 140mV, Va- =
30mV, tail+ = 1μs and tail- = 3μs were chosen for a device with
Vp = 0.16V and Vn = 0.15V, where Va+ and Va- were small
enough to avoid perturbing the memristor, and large enough to
create net potentials across the memristor with a potential
above the memristor programming thresholds Vp and Vn.

Fig. 6. A spiking neural system for the pattern recognition application of
optical character recognition (OCR). Text images are sensed by an input
neuron matrix with each pixel maps to a neuron, which converts it into spikes
with spike rate proportional to the pixel darkness. All spikes from input
neurons propagate through the memristor synapse network to the output
neurons. Summing of input spikes causes a spike event from an output neuron
with WTA competition. This spike from the output neuron acts as a decision
signal and is used to update the synaptic weights with the STDP rule in training
mode.

D. STDP-Compatible Spike Generator
The shape of the action potential Vspk strongly influences the
STDP learning function. A biological-like STDP pulse with
exponential rising edges is very difficult to realize in circuits.
However, a bio-inspired STDP pulse can be achieved with a
simpler action potential shape: a short narrow positive pulse of
large amplitude followed by a longer slowly decreasing
negative tail as plotted in Fig. 5C. This leads to a simple
implementation, and yet realizes a STDP learning function
similar to the biological counterpart [20]. The detailed spike
generator circuit, shown in Fig. 5A, employs a voltage selector
and RC charging circuit for the positive tail and the negative
tail, respectively.
IV. PATTERN RECOGNITION APPLICATION

B. CMOS Neuron Behaviors and STDP in Memristors
Functionality of the proposed neuron was first simulated in a
small neural circuit with two memristor synapses connected
between two input neurons (pre-synaptic neurons) and one
output neuron (post-synaptic neuron) as shown in Fig. 7A.
Fig. 7B shows the integration and firing operations of the
neuron and the STDP learning in the memristors. In this
simulation, one of the pre-synaptic neurons was forced to spike
regularly with output Vpre1 (solid line), while the other spikes
randomly with output Vpre2 (dash line). The post-synaptic
neuron summed the currents that were converted from Vpre1 and
Vpre2 by the two synapses, and yielded Vmem. Post-synaptic
spikes Vpost were generated once Vmem crossed the firing
threshold voltage Vthr = 0.3V. The bottom subplot shows
potentiation and depression of the memristor synapses when a
post-synaptic spike overlapped with the latest pre-synaptic
spike, and created a net potential Va+ + Va- = 170mV over the
memristors which was exceed their programming thresholds Vp
= 160mV or Vn = 150mV. Quantitatively, a post/pre-synaptic
spike pair with 1μs arriving time difference Δt resulted in a
0.2μS conductance increase or decrease depending on late or

As an important application of machine learning, optical
character recognition (OCR) is widely used to demonstrate and
evaluate pattern recognition performance. An electronic OCR
system is designed to convert the images of printed text into
computer-readable text to be used for electronic storage,
pre-processing for machine learning, text-to-speech, and data
mining, etc.
Fig. 6 illustrates a single-layer OCR system with the proposed
architecture: the text image is read by an input sensory matrix
where each pixel maps to a neuron and is converted into spikes.
All spikes from input neurons propagate through a synaptic
memristor network to the output neurons. Summing of the input
spikes causes a spike from a winning output neuron under
WTA competition, which then back-propagates and locally
updates weights of the synapses via a STDP learning rule.
To effectively train this network, a supervised method is used.
The teaching signal Vtch is provided to the assigned output
neuron as shown in Fig. 3A. The signal Vtch forces the neuron to
spike immediately after input pattern is received. Thus, the
learning algorithm is tightly embedded in hardware in the
proposed implementation.
7

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.

Vpre (V)

B
Vpre1
Vpost

D

1

1600

0.9

C

1

Δt>0

Δt>0

Δt>0

0.9

Vmem (V)

0.2

0

0.9
0.6
0.3

-0.1
-0.2
-4

-2

0

Δt (µs)

2

100

10

1

Number of Synapses
10,000 Synapses
1,000 Synapses
100 Synapses

400

56µA

Potentiation

13µA

1.2

0
Depression

1
50

4

10
10,000 1,000

800

Vthr

1.4

Gmr (µS)

ΔGmr (µS)

0.1

100

Δt<0

Total Current (uA)

Vpost (V)

1200
Vpre2

Synapses
Driving
Baseline

1,000

Current (µA)

A

80

110

140

170

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (us)

Time (µs)

Fig. 7. (A) A small spiking neural network with two input neurons and one output neuron is used to demonstrate CMOS neuron operation. A memristor model in
[44] was employed. (B) Neuron operation and STDP learning. Output neuron sums input current and yields the membrane potential Vmem. Post-synaptic spikes Vpost
fired when Vmem crossed Vth, and caused synaptic potentiation or depression, which depends on the relative arriving time with respect to the pre-synaptic spikes Vpre.
(C) Simulated pairwise STDP learning window around 1µS conductance and 5µs relative time range. (D) Current proportional to synapse numbers was required to
sustain spike voltage amplitudes for desired STDP learning in memristors, which causes large current being pulled when a large number of memristor are
interfaced. Dynamic biasing based on dual-mode operation kept the neuron in very low power phase with only baseline (or static) current in integration mode, and
extra current for output drive in firing mode. The embedded plot shows the current consumption breakdown versus the number of memristor synapses, assuming
that the distribution of resistive states is tightly arranged around 1MΩ.

earlier arrival of Vpost relative to Vpre respectively. Fig. 7C
summarizes the STDP learning in memristor conductance
change ΔGmr versus ±5µs range of Δt. The asymmetric curve
shape with more depression peak value than potentiation was
caused by the lower memristor negative threshold Vn than Vp.
To evaluate energy-efficiency, the neurons were designed to
have the capability to drive up to 10,000 memristor synapses
with an assumption that the distribution of resistive states is
tightly arranged around 1MΩ resistance. This yields a 100Ω
equivalent resistive load. Fig. 7D shows the neuron consumed
13μA baseline current in the integration mode. When firing, the
dynamically biased output stage consumed around 56μA
current in the class-AB stage, and drove the remaining current
to memristor synapses: a 1.4mA peak current for 10,000
memristor synapses sustained a spike voltage amplitude of
140mV. The current sunk by the synapses follows Ohm’s law
due to the nature of the memristor synapse as a resistive-type
load. Insufficient current supplied to the memristors will cause
a lower spike voltage amplitude that may fail STDP learning.
Here, the widely used energy-efficiency figure-of-merit for
silicon neuron, pJ/spike/synapse, becomes dependent on the
resistance of synapses, and therefore, is not an appropriate
descriptor of neuron’s efficiency. Instead, the power efficiency
η during the maximum driving condition (at equivalent
resistive load) should be used, i.e.
𝜂=

𝐼mr
𝐼mr +𝐼IFN

.

static current. It should be noted these power consumption
values are for a neuron design that targets a broad range of
memristors, without optimizing for a specific device, and
therefore have a significant room for improvement in power
efficiency when designed for specific memristor
characteristics.
C. Handwritten Digits Recognition
We employed handwritten digits obtained from the UCI
Machine Learning Repository [68] to demonstrate real-world
pattern learning and classification with the proposed system.
Fig. 8A shows the pattern examples in this dataset. These
images include handwritten digits from a total of 43
individuals, 30 included the training set and a separate 13 to the
test set. 32×32 bitmaps are divided into non-overlapping blocks
of 4×4 and the number of ‘on’ pixels are counted in each block.
This generates an input matrix of 8×8 where each element is an
integer in the range of 0 to 15.
In our simulations, digits “0”, “1”, “2” and “7” were selected
from the training dataset, in which there are 376, 389, 380 and
387 samples of each digit respectively. In the testing dataset,
the samples number are 178, 182, 177 and 179, respectively.
Samples in the testing dataset are different from the samples in
the training dataset. These images were mapped onto an 8×8
sensory neuron matrix consists of 64 IFNs, and pixel values
were converted into currents flowing to IFNs, with a threshold
of seven or greater for “on” values used. This results in the
input spike trains are shown in Fig. 8D. Each dot represents a
spike and corresponds to an image pixel in binary form.
During the training phase, the training mode Vmode signal was
sent to the output neurons. Digit samples were presented to the
system in their original sequence in the dataset. Corresponding
labels were read into the simulator to activate the teaching
signal Vtch to the corresponding output neuron, and forced a
post-synaptic spike Vpost at 1μs after each pattern was presented.
All samples of the four digits in the training dataset were
presented.

(3)

Here Imr is the current consumed by a memristor and IIFN is the
current consumed by a silicon neuron. Our simulation
demonstrated η = 97% with 100 Ω for the selected memristor,
and a baseline power consumption of 22μW with a 1.8V power
supply voltage. This baseline power consumption doesn’t
change with the neuron’s driving capability thanks to the
tri-mode operation. As a comparison, a neuron without
dynamical biasing consumes a 5-fold baseline current; a neuron
based on dual-OpAmp architecture may consume a 10-fold
8

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
A

First 20

Train
(original sequence)
Test
(class-by-class)

B

Neuron "0"

Neuron "1"

Neuron "2"

C

Neuron "7"

Conductance Evolution in Synapses (µS)

50

60

Conductance (µS)

50

40

40
30

30
20
20

10

10

0

0

1 3 5 7
Time (ms)

D

1 3 5 7
Time (ms)

1 3 5 7
Time (ms)

1 3 5 7
Time (ms)

Input Spike Trains

0

1094

2189

3283 4377
Time (µs)

Output Spike Trains without Learning

5471

6566

7660

Output Spikes Train with Learning

60
7

7

30

Neuron #

40

Neuron #

Neuron #

50

2

2

1

1

0

0

20

10

0
0

1
100

2
200

7
300

400

0

100

Time (µs)

200

Time (µs)

300

400

0

100

200

300

400

Time (µs)

Fig. 8. (A) Examples of digits from UCI optical handwriting dataset. First line shows the first 20 digits images in the original training dataset, second line shows the
first 20 digits samples used to train the network which is listed in the same sequence of original dataset, and the third line shows an examples of digits samples
rearranged in class-by-class fashion used in testing but 5 samples for each digit. (B) Direct plot of memristor conductance learned in a circuit-level simulation with
4 output neurons during one epoch of training. (C) Conductance evolution rearranged as 8×8 bitmap. Before training, all synapses were initialized with a Gaussian
random distributed conductance (μ = 8.5nS, σ = 4nS). After training, the maximum conductance is 53μS, and the minimum conductance is 6.6 nS. With the training
moving on, the memristor network abstracted distinctive features of digits: loop of the digit “0”, the vertical line of the “1”, or the bone of “2” and “7”. (D) Test
results of the neural network with an input spike train composed of 20 samples for each digit and presented in class-by-class fashion. Without learning, a random
synaptic network caused decision neurons spiking arbitrarily. After learning, each of these 4 output neurons is mostly selective to one of the 4 classes and spiking in
the same class-by-class fashion of input.

distinctive features of the digits: The loop of the digit “0”, the
vertical line of the “1”, and the bone of “2” and “7”.
Fig. 8D shows a testing simulation with 20 samples from
each digit (out of four) and presented to the system for
recognition in a class-by-class fashion. With an untrained
synaptic network, the four output neurons responded to the
inputs with random spiking. After training, each output neuron
responds to the input patterns in the same class most of time
showing clear selectivity, and only one neuron fired under the
local competition rule.
Fig. 9A zooms into the details of currents and membrane
voltages during testing. Due to the modulation of the synaptic
network (causing different integration speeds), the total current
flowing into the output neurons were separated; the neuron with
the largest current (I0) had its membrane voltage Vmem0 cross the

Fig. 8B plots conductance changes in the memristor synapses
connecting to each of the four output neurons. Before training,
all synapses were initialized with Gaussian randomly
distributed conductances (μ = 8.5nS, σ = 4nS). During training,
their conductances were gradually increased and separated to
different values, due to the STDP learning of the memristors.
Because of computing resource restrictions on circuit-level
simulations, we have limited the training demonstration to only
one epoch here. However, the weights stabilize eventually after
several epochs of training based on Matlab simulations as
shown later using the IFN model of Eq. (2) instead of a
transistor-level circuit.
Fig. 8C is a rearrangement of the conductance into an 8×8
bitmap with each pixel corresponding to an input image. It is
remarkable that the synaptic networks abstracted several
9

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
B

I7

50

0

25

25.1

25.2

25.3

0

1
Vmem7

0.8
Vmem0

0.6
0.4
0.2

Vthr
Firing Threshold

0
24.9

25

Time (µs)

25.1

25.2

2

0

30

25
20

15
0

100

200

Time (µs)

Time (µs)

7

35

10

25.3

1

Opportunity of Firing (%)

100

After Learning
40

40

Opportunity of Firing (%)

I0

-50
24.9

Befor Learning

1.2

150

Membrane Voltage Vmem (V)

Current Flow into Neurons (µA)

A

300

400

1

2

7

35
30

25
20
15
10

0

100

200

300

400

Time (µs)

Fig. 9. (A) In a test case with one digit presented to the system, total current flowing into decision neurons were separated due to the modulation of synaptic
network, which caused different integration speeds. The neuron with the largest input current I0 had its membrane voltage Vmem0 cross the firing threshold Vth first,
and then won the competition of the race-to-fire first. (B) Firing opportunity and spike outputs of 4 output neurons for the spike input shown in Fig. 7D. All neurons
have almost equal opportunities to spiking at the beginning. After learning, their spiking probabilities are modulated by their synaptic connections and
distinguished. As result, a winner emerges.

firing threshold Vth first winning the competition to fire first;
whereas the current flowing into neuron “7” (I7) was too small
to make its Vmem7 reach the firing threshold. The other two
neurons had their Vmem reach the firing threshold, but their
potential firing events were suppressed by the winner neuron.
Membrane voltages of all neurons were reset by the WTA
signal on the shared bus (not shown), and the actual circuit
behavior introduced a 50ns delay from Vth crossing to Vmem
resetting.
To illustrate this competitive learning in another way, we
define spiking ‘opportunities’ of the output neurons based on
the total currents flowing into them,
𝑝𝑛 = ∑𝑖 𝐼𝑛,𝑖 (𝑡) / ∑𝑛 ∑𝑖 𝐼𝑛,𝑖 (𝑡)

into this architecture. With these threshold voltages, it is
impossible to find a STDP pulse that can produce both
potentiation and depression while not disturbing the memristor.
In other words, for generalized STDP learning, assuming
symmetric the pre- and post-synaptic spikes, a memristor is
expected to have its thresholds satisfy the condition: |𝑉𝑝 −
𝑉𝑛 | < 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑉𝑝 , 𝑉𝑛 ).
In terms of energy-efficiency, an optimized design is the one
with driving capability tailored according to the desired
application and the memristor used. In the presented
simulations, the neuron was tailored to support up to 1.5mA
current in order to sustain Va+ = 140mV to a memristor network
which has a peak average resistance around 93Ω. With MNIST
patterns, each output neuron would have 784 input synaptic
connections, thus the average resistive loading of these 784
synapses should be evaluated for both training and testing
scenarios. The neuron driving capability is selected to sustain
the least spike voltage amplitudes on the lowest equivalent
resistive load while achieving the highest power efficiency. If
the resistance of the memristor in its low resistance state (LRS)
is 1kΩ and (say) 1% of the memristors are in their LRS,
7,840µA current is required to maintain a 1V spike voltage. For
VGA (480640 pixels) images, this number skyrockets to
32,700µA. It can be concluded that to implement low-power
brain-inspired computing chip, the memristor synapses should
have fairly high resistances (more than a MΩ) in their LRS, or a
mechanism to isolate non-active synapses from the network
during neurons’ firing without large overheads becomes
necessary.
On physical device side, a memristor passive crossbar
architecture generally suffers from sneak paths (undesired
paths parallel to the intended path for current sensing) [18],
[65], [72]–[74]. The sneak-paths problem is caused by directly
connecting resistive-type cells on sensing grid to the
high-impedance terminations of the unselected lines. As stated
in section II. B, a fixed voltage across a memristor is required
for brain-inspired computing. Therefore, every path without a
spike in the crossbar is tied to Vrefr, and so the above discussed
large current pouring into memristor networks becomes costly
in terms of power consumption. Theoretically, a non-firing
neuron could have a floating output thus reducing the current,
but consequently sneak paths may bridge spiking neurons to
other neurons and cause malfunction. So far, none of the

(4)
th

where pn is the relative spiking opportunity of the n output
neuron and In,i is the current flowing into the nth output neuron
by the ith input. With the same synaptic weights and the all In,i
equal, it follows that pn = 1/n, which means the same chance to
fire and no winner (for this reason, the synapses can’t be
initialized to all zero values. And such a condition doesn’t exist
in a real-world environment too). Once the synaptic weights are
well modulated, they create different currents flowing into
neurons. With a larger current, a neuron has the higher
opportunity to spike in the same timeslot, which distinguishes
the winner neuron from the others.
In this pattern recognition example, a 96% correction rate was
achieved with the selected 4 digits. Matlab simulations with the
IFN mathematical model show 83% correction rate with all 10
digits. These results are encouraging especially considering the
system is a simple single-layer network, and no input encoding
was applied. Applying symbolic patterns that were used in [24],
[25], [28], [29], [69], [70], 100% correction rates were achieved
simply because each pattern produced a unique synaptic
network with their weights having exactly the same shape as
the identical pattern of each class.
VI. DISCUSSION
The described CMOS spiking neuron architecture is
generalized for memristor synapses. By selecting appropriate
CMOS technology with sufficient supply voltage, online STDP
learning can be achieved with the memristors, but not limited
to, as reported in [39]–[41], [71]. However, the memristor in
[13], with its Vp = 1.5V and Vn = 0.5V, would be difficult to fit
10

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
Neuron "1"

Normalized Synaptic Weights

Neuron "0"

Neuron "2"

Neuron "7"

1

1

1

1

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0
0

1

2

3

4

5 6

7

Training Epochs

8

9 10

0

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

Training Epochs

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

Training Epochs

Training Epochs

Fig. 10. Direct plot of memristor conductance learned in the behavioral Matlab simulation with the IFN mathematical model of Eq. (2). It shows the network
optimally trains for the desired patterns and the weights eventually stabilize. This is expected as well if the circuit-level simulations were continued for several
training intervals. The normalized synaptic weights in the Matlab simulation was initialized with a Gaussian randomly distributed (μ = 0.01, σ = 0.01) values.

existing solutions for sneak-paths work for memristor
synapses, and thus further studies are required.
Device variability is another challenge when using
nano-scale memristors as synapses. Large variations in time
and space of memristor synapses could cause unpredictable
dynamics in the network, or simply fail to do learning.
Although a spiking neural network offers some tolerance to
device variation [75], the memristor threshold variations can
easily fail network training especially when a low voltage spike
is applied. There is a careful design trade-off between the
low-voltage amplitudes of a spike required for
energy-efficiency, and the high net potential margin over the
memristor’s characteristics required for reliable STDP
learning. For instance, a memristor with Vp = 160mV and Vn =
150mV requires the spike voltage must higher than 80mV
while a practical value typically in the range of 100 to 140mV
to minimize the impact from device variations and spike noise.
Some recent works have tried to address device variability by
combining binary memristors to form a multi-level memristor
cell for stochastic computing [32], [76]. Our proposed
architecture works for stochastic computing as well, however, a
stochastic firing mechanism is needed for the silicon neuron
implementation instead of deterministic firing. Leveraging the
stochastic behavior of nano-devices, a solution was proposed in
[77] but its hardware realization feasibility still needs
evaluation. Finally, it should be noted that the circuit-level
simulations with faithful modeling of electrical behavior
consumes significant amount of time as well as computing
resources. Due to these restrictions, we limited the training
demonstration to one epoch in the circuit-level simulations in
shown this work. Based on the behavioral Matlab simulation
results (see Fig. 10) with the IFN mathematical model of Eq.
(2), the network optimally trains for the desired patterns and the
weights eventually stabilize. This is expected if the circuit-level
simulations were continued for several training intervals.
Moreover, in our Matlab simulation, one has the flexibility to
randomly initialize the weights. However, in a circuits
approach, the memristors are expected to ‘pre-formed’ using a
voltage pulse (or a photo-induced pre-forming step) which sets
them in a high-resistance initial state. Therefore, the circuit
simulations presented in this paper were initialized with all the
memristors in their high-resistance state (low conductance) and
then were potentiated to their final weights.

VII. CONCLUSION
This paper describes a homogenous spiking neuromorphic
system. It combines standard CMOS design of a novel silicon
integrate-and-fire neuron with a memristor crossbar which can
be realized in contemporary nano-scale semiconductor
technology. This system naturally embeds localized online
learning and computing by employing STDP learning in the
memristor synapses with a winner-takes-all strategy among the
local neurons. The CMOS neuron combines its circuit functions
in a compact manner based on a single OpAmp, using a
tri-mode operation. It also enables one-terminal connectivity
between a neuron and a synapse, this fully exploits the synaptic
density gain obtained by using memristor crossbar synapses.
Supported by its reconfigurable architecture, a dynamic
powering scheme allows the neuron to interface with a large
number of memristor synapses without compromising
energy-efficiency. Circuit simulations verified the functionality
of the proposed neuron, and demonstrated an application of
real-world pattern recognition with handwriting digits. In
conclusion, the described system is homogenous, fully
asynchronous, energy-efficient, and compact. Thus, it realizes a
fundamental building block for a large-scale brain-inspired
computing architecture.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their help in
improving this work with their comments on the manuscript
writing and results presentation. The authors also thank Dr.
John Chiasson for his comments on the manuscript.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Stromatias, F. Galluppi, C. Patterson, and S. Furber, “Power analysis
of large-scale, real-time neural networks on SpiNNaker,” in International Joint
Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2013, pp. 1–8.
[2] W. Gerstner, R. Kempter, J. van Hemmen, and H. Wagner, “A neuronal
learning rule for sub-millisecond temporal coding,” Nature, 1996.
[3] G. Q. Bi and M. M. Poo, “Synaptic modifications in cultured
hippocampal neurons: dependence on spike timing, synaptic strength, and
postsynaptic cell type,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 18, no. 24, pp.
10464–72, Dec. 1998.
[4] G. Bi and M. Poo, “Synaptic modification by correlated activity: Hebb’s
postulate revisited,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, vol. 24, pp. 139–166,
2001.

11

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
[5] P. J. Sjöström, G. G. Turrigiano, and S. B. Nelson, “Rate, timing, and
cooperativity jointly determine cortical synaptic plasticity,” Neuron, vol. 32, no.
6, pp. 1149–64, Dec. 2001.
[6] N. Golding, N. Staff, and N. Spruston, “Dendritic spikes as a mechanism
for cooperative long-term potentiation,” Nature, vol. 418, no. July, 2002.
[7] Y. Dan and M.-M. Poo, “Spike timing-dependent plasticity of neural
circuits,” Neuron, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 23–30, Sep. 2004.
[8] Y. Dan and M. Poo, “Spike timing-dependent plasticity: from synapse to
perception,” Physiological Reviews, pp. 1033–1048, 2006.
[9] T. Masquelier and S. J. S. Thorpe, “Unsupervised learning of visual
features through spike timing dependent plasticity,” PLOS Computational
Biology, vol. 3, no. 2, p. e31, Feb. 2007.
[10] U. Weidenbacher and H. Neumann, “Unsupervised learning of head pose
through spike-timing dependent plasticity,” in Perception in Multimodal
Dialogue Systems, vol. 5078 LNCS, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp.
123–131.
[11] H. Lee, “Unsupervised Feature Learning Via Sparse Hierarchical
Representations,” 2010.
[12] B. Nessler, M. Pfeiffer, L. Buesing, and W. Maass, “Bayesian
computation emerges in generic cortical microcircuits through
spike-timing-dependent plasticity,” PLOS Computational Biology, vol. 9, no. 4,
Apr. 2013.
[13] S. H. Jo, T. Chang, I. Ebong, B. B. Bhadviya, P. Mazumder, and W. Lu,
“Nanoscale memristor device as synapse in neuromorphic systems,” Nano
Letters, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1297–301, Apr. 2010.
[14] D. Kuzum, R. Jeyasingh, B. Lee, and H. Wong, “Nanoelectronic
programmable synapses based on phase change materials for brain-inspired
computing,” Nano Letters, pp. 2179–2186, 2011.
[15] S. Yu, Y. Wu, and R. Jeyasingh, “An electronic synapse device based on
metal oxide resistive switching memory for neuromorphic computation,” IEEE
Transations on Electron Devices, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 2729–2737, 2011.
[16] K. Seo, I. Kim, S. Jung, M. Jo, and S. Park, “Analog memory and
spike-timing-dependent plasticity characteristics of a nanoscale titanium oxide
bilayer resistive switching device,” Nanotechnology, vol. 22, no. 25, p. 254023,
Jun. 2011.
[17] Y. Li, Y. Zhong, L. Xu, J. Zhang, X. Xu, H. Sun, and X. Miao, “Ultrafast
synaptic events in a chalcogenide memristor,” Scientific Reports, vol. 3, p.
1619, Jan. 2013.
[18] J. J. Yang, D. B. Strukov, and D. R. Stewart, “Memristive devices for
computing,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 13–24, Jan. 2013.
[19] T. Chang, Y. Yang, and W. Lu, “Building Neuromorphic Circuits with
Memristive Devices,” IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.
56–73, 2013.
[20] T. Serrano-Gotarredona, “A proposal for hybrid memristor-CMOS
spiking neuromorphic learning systems,” IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine,
vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 74–88, 2013.
[21] G. Indiveri, B. Linares-Barranco, R. Legenstein, G. Deligeorgis, and T.
Prodromakis, “Integration of nanoscale memristor synapses in neuromorphic
computing architectures,” in Nanotechnology, 2013, vol. 24, no. 38, p. 384010.
[22] S. Saïghi, C. G. Mayr, T. Serrano-Gotarredona, H. Schmidt, G. Lecerf, J.
Tomas, J. Grollier, S. Boyn, A. F. Vincent, D. Querlioz, S. La Barbera, F.
Alibart, D. Vuillaume, O. Bichler, C. Gamrat, and B. Linares-Barranco,
“Plasticity in memristive devices for spiking neural networks,” Frontiers in
Neuroscience, vol. 9, no. March, pp. 1–16, 2015.
[23] D. Querlioz, W. Zhao, and P. Dollfus, “Bioinspired networks with
nanoscale memristive devices that combine the unsupervised and supervised
learning approaches,” in International Symposium on Nanoscale Architectures
(NANOARCH), 2012, pp. 203–210.
[24] F. Alibart, E. Zamanidoost, and D. B. Strukov, “Pattern classification by
memristive crossbar circuits using ex situ and in situ training,” Nature
Communications, vol. 4, no. May, p. 2072, Jan. 2013.
[25] M. Chu, B. Kim, S. Park, H. Hwang, M.-G. Jeon, B. H. Lee, and B.-G.
Lee, “Neuromorphic Hardware System for Visual Pattern Recognition with
Memristor Array and CMOS Neuron,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 0046, no. c, pp. 1–1, 2014.
[26] S. Yu, “Orientation Classification by a Winner-Take-All Network with
Oxide RRAM based Synaptic Devices,” in International Symposium on
Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2014, pp. 1058–1061.
[27] D. Chabi, Z. Wang, W. Zhao, and J.-O. Klein, “On-chip supervised
learning rule for ultra high density neural crossbar using memristor for synapse
and neuron,” in International Symposium on Nanoscale Architectures
(NANOARCH), 2014, pp. 7–12.
[28] A. Sheri, H. Hwang, M. Jeon, and B. Lee, “Neuromorphic character
recognition system with two PCMO-Memristors as a synapse,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 2933–2941, 2014.

[29] P. Sheridan, W. Ma, and W. Lu, “Pattern Recognition with Memristor
Networks,” in International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2014,
pp. 1078–1081.
[30] M. Payvand, J. Rofeh, A. Sodhi, and L. Theogarajan, “A
CMOS-memristive self-learning neural network for pattern classification
applications,” in International Symposium on Nanoscale Architectures
(NANOARCH), 2014, no. 1, pp. 92–97.
[31] K. Moon, S. Park, J. Jang, D. Lee, J. Woo, E. Cha, S. Lee, J. Park, J. Song,
Y. Koo, and H. Hwang, “Hardware implementation of associative memory
characteristics
with
analogue-type
resistive-switching
device,”
Nanotechnology, vol. 25, no. 49, p. 495204, 2014.
[32] J. Bill and R. Legenstein, “A compound memristive synapse model for
statistical learning through STDP in spiking neural networks,” Frontiers in
Neuroscience, vol. 8, no. December, pp. 1–18, 2014.
[33] C. Zamarreño-Ramos, L. A. Camuñas-Mesa, J. A. Pérez-Carrasco, T.
Masquelier, T. Serrano-Gotarredona, and B. Linares-Barranco, “On
spike-timing-dependent-plasticity, memristive devices, and building a
self-learning visual cortex,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 5, no. March, p. 26,
Jan. 2011.
[34] T. Serrano-Gotarredona and B. Linares-Barranco, “Design of adaptive
nano/CMOS neural architectures,” in International Conference on Electronics,
Circuits and Systems (ICECS), 2012, pp. 949–952.
[35] G. Lecerf, J. Tomas, and S. Saighi, “Excitatory and Inhibitory
Memristive Synapses for Spiking Neural Networks,” in International
Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2013, pp. 1616–1619.
[36] G. Lecerf and J. Tomas, “Silicon Neuron dedicated to Memristive
Spiking Neural Networks,” in International Symposium on Circuits and
Systems (ISCAS), 2014, pp. 1568–1571.
[37] C. Koch, Biophysics of Computation: Information Processing in Single
Neurons. Oxford University Press, 2004.
[38] G. S. Snider, “Self-organized computation with unreliable, memristive
nanodevices,” Nanotechnology, vol. 18, no. 36, p. 365202, 2007.
[39] G. Snider, “Cortical computing with memristive nanodevices,” SciDAC
Review, pp. 58–65, 2008.
[40] J. Yang, M. Pickett, and X. Li, “Memristive switching mechanism for
metal/oxide/metal nanodevices,” Nature, 2008.
[41] F. Miao, J. Strachan, and J. Yang, “Anatomy of a Nanoscale Conduction
Channel Reveals the Mechanism of a High‐Performance Memristor,”
Advanced Materials, vol. 23, no. 47, pp. 5633–5640, 2011.
[42] F. Z. Wang, L. O. Chua, X. Yang, N. Helian, R. Tetzlaff, T. Schmidt, C.
Li, J. M. G. Carrasco, W. Chen, and D. Chu, “Adaptive Neuromorphic
Architecture (ANA),” Neural Networks, vol. 45, pp. 111–6, Sep. 2013.
[43] A. Ascoli, F. Corinto, V. Senger, and R. Tetzlaff, “Memristor Model
Comparison,” IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 89–105,
2013.
[44] C. Yakopcic, “Generalized Memristive Device SPICE Model and its
Application in Circuit Design,” in IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided
Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2013, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1201–1214.
[45] B. Linares-barranco and T. Serrano-gotarredona, “Memristance can
explain spike-time-dependent-plasticity in neural synapses,” Nature
Precedings, pp. 1–4, 2009.
[46] S. Yu and D. Kuzum, “Design Considerations of Synaptic Device for
Neuromorphic Computing,” in International Symposium on Circuits and
Systems (ISCAS), 2014, pp. 1062–1065.
[47] S. Yu, B. Gao, Z. Fang, H. Yu, J. Kang, and H.-S. S. P. Wong, “A low
energy oxide-based electronic synaptic device for neuromorphic visual systems
with tolerance to device variation,” Advanced Materials, vol. 25, no. 12, pp.
1774–1779, Mar. 2013.
[48] B. Govoreanu, G. S. Kar, Y. Chen, V. Paraschiv, S. Kubicek, A. Fantini,
and M. Jurczak, “10×10nm2 Hf/HfOx crossbar resistive RAM with excellent
performance, reliability and low-energy operatio,” in International Electron
Devices Meeting (IEDM), 2011, pp. 31–36.
[49] C. Mead, Analog VLSI and Neural Systems. Boston, MA: Addison
Wesley, 1989.
[50] G. Indiveri, R. Etienne-Cummings, J. Schemmel, G. Cauwenberghs, J.
Arthur, S. Saighi, T. Serrano-Gotarredona, J. Wijekoon, Y. Wang, K. Boahen,
B. Linares-Barranco, T. J. Hamilton, A. van Schaik, R. Etienne-Cummings, T.
Delbruck, S.-C. Liu, P. Dudek, P. Häfliger, S. Renaud, J. Schemmel, G.
Cauwenberghs, J. Arthur, K. Hynna, F. Folowosele, S. Saighi, T.
Serrano-Gotarredona, J. Wijekoon, Y. Wang, and K. Boahen, “Neuromorphic
silicon neuron circuits,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 5, no. 5, p. 73, Jan.
2011.
[51] A. Joubert, B. Belhadj, and R. Heliot, “A robust and compact 65 nm LIF
analog neuron for computational purposes,” in International New Circuits and
systems conference (NEWCAS), 2011, pp. 9–12.

12

Copyright © 2015 IEEE. This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and
Systems, vol 5, no. 2, June 2015 (Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2433552). Personal use is permitted, However, permission to
use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
[52] A. Cassidy, A. G. Andreou, and J. Georgiou, “A combinational digital
logic approach to STDP,” in International Symposium on Circuits and Systems
(ISCAS), 2011, pp. 673–676.
[53] I. Ebong and P. Mazumder, “CMOS and memristor-based neural
network design for position detection,” Proceedings of the IEEE, pp. 1–11,
2012.
[54] J. M. Cruz-Albrecht, M. W. Yung, and N. Srinivasa, “Energy-efficient
neuron, synapse and STDP integrated circuits,” IEEE Transaction on
Biomedical Circuits and Systems, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 246–56, Jun. 2012.
[55] A. Basu, S. Shuo, H. Zhou, M. Hiot Lim, and G.-B. Huang, “Silicon
spiking neurons for hardware implementation of extreme learning machines,”
Neurocomputing, vol. 102, pp. 125–134, Feb. 2013.
[56] R. Wang, T. J. Hamilton, J. Tapson, A. Van Schaik, and G. Dp, “A
generalised conductance-based silicon neuron for large-scale spiking neural
networks,” in International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2014,
pp. 1564–1567.
[57] H. Akima, S. Sato, K. Nakajima, and M. Sakuraba, “Izhikevich neuron
circuit using stochastic logic,” Electronics Letters, vol. 50, no. 24, pp.
1795–1797, Nov. 2014.
[58] T. Tyrrell and D. Willshaw, “Cerebellar cortex: its simulation and the
relevance of Marr’s theory,” Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of
London. Series B, Biological sciences, vol. 336, no. 1277, pp. 239–257, 1992.
[59] Y. LeCun, C. Cortes, and C. J. C. Burges, “The MNIST Database of
handwritten
digits,”
Web
Page,
1998.
[Online].
Available:
http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/.
[60] R. Hasan and T. M. Taha, “Enabling back propagation training of
memristor crossbar neuromorphic processors,” International Joint Conference
on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp. 21–28, Jul. 2014.
[61] T. Masquelier, R. Guyonneau, and S. J. Thorpe, “Spike timing dependent
plasticity finds the start of repeating patterns in continuous spike trains,” PLoS
ONE, vol. 3, no. 1, p. e1377, Jan. 2008.
[62] D. Querlioz, O. Bichler, and C. Gamrat, “Simulation of a
memristor-based spiking neural network immune to device variations,” in
International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2011, pp.
1775–1781.
[63] Q. Yu, H. Tang, K. Tan, and H. Li, “Precise-Spike-Driven Synaptic
Plasticity: Learning Hetero-Association of Spatiotemporal Spike Patterns,”
PLoS ONE, 2013.
[64] J. M. Cruz-Albrecht, T. Derosier, and N. Srinivasa, “A scalable neural
chip with synaptic electronics using CMOS integrated memristors,”
Nanotechnology, vol. 24, no. 38, p. 384011, Sep. 2013.

[65] E. Linn, R. Rosezin, C. Kügeler, and R. Waser, “Complementary
resistive switches for passive nanocrossbar memories,” Nature Materials, vol.
9, no. 5, pp. 403–406, 2010.
[66] M. Motoyoshi, “Through-Silicon Via (TSV),” Proceedings of the IEEE,
vol. 97, pp. 43–48, 2009.
[67] R. Hogervorst, J. P. Tero, R. G. H. Eschauzier, and J. H. Huijsing,
“Compact power-efficient 3 V CMOS rail-to-rail input/output operational
amplifier for VLSI cell libraries,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 29,
no. I, pp. 1505–1513, 1994.
[68] K. B. and M. Lichman, “UCI Machine Learning Repository
[http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml],” Web Page, 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml.
[69] M. Soltiz, S. S. S. S. Member, D. Kudithipudi, C. Merkel, G. S. Rose, and
R. E. Pino, “Memristor-based neural logic blocks for non-linearly separable
functions,” in IEEE Transaction on Computers, 2013, vol. 62, no. 8, pp.
1597–1606.
[70] M. Hu, H. Li, Y. Chen, Q. Wu, G. G. S. Rose, and R. R. W. Linderman,
“Memristor Crossbar-Based Neuromorphic Computing System: A Case Study,”
IEEE Transaction on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 25, no. 99,
pp. 1–1, Oct. 2014.
[71] S. Jo and W. Lu, “CMOS compatible nanoscale nonvolatile resistance
switching memory,” Nano Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 392–397, 2008.
[72] L. Chen, C. Li, T. Huang, Y. Chen, and X. Wang, “Memristor
crossbar-based unsupervised image learning,” Neural Computing and
Applications, Nov. 2013.
[73] S. G. Hu, S. Y. Wu, W. W. Jia, Q. Yu, L. J. Deng, Y. Q. Fu, Y. Liu, and T.
P. Chen, “Review of Nanostructured Resistive Switching Memristor and Its
Applications,” Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Letters, vol. 6, no. 9, pp.
729–757, Sep. 2014.
[74] M. A. Zidan, H. A. H. Fahmy, M. M. Hussain, and K. N. Salama,
“Memristor-based memory: The sneak paths problem and solutions,”
Microelectronics Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 176–183, Feb. 2013.
[75] D. Querlioz, O. Bichler, P. Dollfus, and C. Gamrat, “Immunity to Device
Variations in a Spiking Neural Network With Memristive Nanodevices,” in
IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology, 2013, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 288–295.
[76] S. Gaba, P. Sheridan, J. Zhou, S. Choi, and W. Lu, “Stochastic
memristive devices for computing and neuromorphic applications,” Nanoscale,
vol. 5, pp. 5872–8, 2013.
[77] G. Palma, M. Suri, D. Querlioz, E. Vianello, and B. De Salvo,
“Stochastic neuron design using conductive bridge RAM,” in International
Symposium on Nanoscale Architectures (NANOARCH), 2013, pp. 95–100.

13

