4 ms·

I'm not sure if this is exactly what that paper is referring to, but a real neutron firing is not like an artificial one firing. An artificial one always fires

I'm not sure if this is exactly what that paper is referring to, but a real neutron firing is not like an artificial one firing. An artificial one always fires on a fixed clock, as you say, but some numeric output says how much it is firing. With a real neuron, it either fires or it doesn't, there's no numeric intensity. But how often it fires says how intense the response is. So that does agree with your overall statement that they're not very good analogues... At the very least, their mechanism is quite different. But it does mean that the 600Hz figure is quite misleading, because it's only after a period somewhat longer than 1/600th of a second that you can start to understand the intensity of the output.

candiodari 3y ago
The average firing rate of a neocortex neuron (white or grey matter, non-specialized neurons), is only in the order of 1 Hz (for ease of remembering, in practice it is between 0.1 and 2 Hz, the further from the brainbridge a neuron is, generally speaking the slow it fires. With exceptions. Obviously, for example, this doesn't apply to the visual cortex). https://aiimpacts.org/rate-of-neuron-firing/ https://aiimpacts.org/rate-of-neuron-firing/ The very high firing rate neurons seem to be fixed function generators that don't actually process information, and some appear to have a function similar to the positional encoding in transformers, others encode the current "chemical" state of for example hormones, but there's many we don't know the function of.