Neurons in the brain communicate through action potentials (spikes) that are transmitted through chemical synapses. Throughout the last decades, the question how networks of spiking neurons represent and process information has remained an important challenge. Some progress has resulted from a recent family of supervised learning rules (tempotrons) for models of spiking neurons. However, these studies have viewed synaptic transmission as static and characterized synaptic efficacies as scalar quantities that change only on slow time scales of learning across trials but remain fixed on the fast time scales of information processing within a trial. By contrast, signal transduction at chemical synapses in the brain results from complex molecular interactions between multiple biochemical processes whose dynamics result in substantial short-term plasticity of most connections. Here we study the computational capabilities of spiking neurons whose synapses are dynamic and plastic, such that each individual synapse can learn its own dynamics. We derive tempotron learning rules for current-based leaky-integrate-and-fire neurons with different types of dynamic synapses. Introducing ordinal synapses whose efficacies depend only on the order of input spikes, we establish an upper capacity bound for spiking neurons with dynamic synapses. We compare this bound to independent synapses, static synapses and to the well established phenomenological Tsodyks-Markram model. We show that synaptic dynamics in principle allow the storage capacity of spiking neurons to scale with the number of input spikes and that this increase in capacity can be traded for greater robustness to input noise, such as spike time jitter. Our work highlights the feasibility of a novel computational paradigm for spiking neural circuits with plastic synaptic dynamics: Rather than being determined by the fixed number of afferents, the dimensionality of a neuron's decision space can be scaled flexibly through the number of input spikes emitted by its input layer.

We study the dynamics of (inhibitory) balanced networks at varying (i) the level of symmetry in the synaptic connectivity; and (ii) the ariance of the synaptic efficacies (synaptic gain). We find three regimes of activity. For suitably low synaptic gain, regardless of the level of symmetry, there exists a unique stable fixed point. Using a cavity-like approach, we develop a quantitative theory that describes the statistics of the activity in this unique fixed point, and the conditions for its stability. Increasing the synaptic gain, the unique fixed point destabilizes, and the network exhibits chaotic activity for zero or negative levels of symmetry (i.e., random or antisymmetric). Instead, for positive levels of symmetry, there is multi-stability among a large number of marginally stable fixed points. In this regime, ergodicity is broken and the network exhibits non-exponential relaxational dynamics. We discuss the potential relevance of such a “glassy” phase to explain some features of cortical activity.

Inhibitory interneurons come in different classes and form intricate circuits. While our knowledge of these circuits has advanced substantially over the last decades, it is not fully understood how the structure of these circuits relates to their function. I will present some of our recent attempts to “understand” the structure of interneuron circuits by means of computational modeling. Surprisingly (at least for us), we found that prominent features of inhibitory circuitry can be accounted for by an optimisation for excitation-inhibition (E/I) balance. In particular, we find that such an optimisation generates networks that resemble mouse V1 in terms of the structure of synaptic efficacies between principal cells and parvalbumin-positive interneurons. Moreover, an optimisation for E/I balance across neuronal compartments promotes a functional diversification of interneurons into two classes that resemble parvalbumin and somatostatin-positive interneurons. Time permitting, I may briefly touch on recent work in which we link E/I balance to prediction error coding in V1.