doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2006.02.004
Copyright © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Time-series prediction with single integrate-and-fire neuron
aDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India
Received 3 March 2005;
revised 11 January 2006;
accepted 13 February 2006.
Available online 18 April 2006.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must
purchase this article.
Abstract
In this paper, a learning algorithm for a single integrate-and-fire neuron (IFN) is proposed and tested for various applications in which a multilayer perceptron neural network is conventionally used. It is found that a single IFN is sufficient for the applications that require a number of neurons in different hidden layers of a conventional neural network. Several benchmark and real-life problems of classification and time-series prediction have been illustrated. It is observed that the inclusion of some more biological phenomenon in an artificial neural network can make it more powerful.
Keywords: Backpropagation; Integrate-and-fire neuron; Time-series prediction
Fig. 1. Circuit diagram of an integrate-and-fire neuron model.
Fig. 2. Response of an integrate-and-fire neuron model.
Fig. 3. f–I relationship of an integrate-and-fire neuron model.
Fig. 4. Architecture of the proposed neuron model.
Fig. 5. Mean square error vs. epochs for training for XOR-problem.
Fig. 6. Mean square error vs. epochs for training for 3-bit parity problem.
Fig. 7. Mean square error vs. epochs for training for Internet Traffic Data.
Fig. 8. Target and actual output with MLP and IFN, for Internet-Traffic Data.
Fig. 9. Mean square error vs. epochs for training for EEG Data.
Fig. 10. Target and actual output with MLP and IFN, for EEG Data.
Table 1.
Outputs of IFN and MLP for XOR-problem

Table 2.
Comparison of testing and training performance for XOR-problem

Table 3.
Outputs of IFN and MLP for 3-bit parity problem

Table 4.
Comparison of testing and training performance for 3-bit parity problem

Table 5.
Comparison of testing and training performance for internet-traffic data

Table 6.
Comparison of testing and training performance for EEG data
