Neural Networks, Vol. 4, pp. 15-25, 1991 (JS93-608(I/91 $3.00 ~ .

00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright , 1991 Pergamon Press pie

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

The Cortical Column: A New Processing Unit for

Multilayered Networks

FRt~Dt~RIC ALEXANDRE, FREDI~RIC GUYOT, AND JEAN-PAUL HATON

CR1N/INRIA

YVES BURNOD
Institut des Neurosciences, Paris V

(Received 22 August 1989: revised and ac'c~Tted 3 May 1990)

Abstract--We propose in this paper a new connectionist unit that matches a biological model o[ the cortical
column. The architectural and functional characteristics" o f this unit have been designed in the simplest manner
in order to simulate human-like reasoning, and to be as similar as possible to the main known ]batures of real
intracortical networks. We use a new type o f learning rule which can easily take into account goal-oriented
combinations o f actions in behavioral programs. These learning rules are both simple and biologically plausible.
We show in this paper that such units can be used in multilayered networks to perJbrm pattern recognition, with
[eedback connections effecting an attentive gating of sensory information flow. Computer simulations were
performed to assess the ability of a multilayered network made O[ these biologically inspired units to perform
standard speech and visual recognition. Such simulations show levels o f perJbrmance equivalent to the best
currently available connectionist networks .(or typical human-like problems, with very fast learning and recog-
nition processes. Furthermore, this type o f "cortical" unit can be used in more general multilayered networks
with units controlling different types o f external processing, in order to learn programs o f actions which may
be included in the process of recognition.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N networks could correspond to the successive cortical

maps which process sensory information, with learn-
During the past ten years, both artificial intelligence
ing rules which enable them to learn any type of
researchers and neuroscientists have been paying in-
input-output transformations using an error signal
creasing attention to connectionist networks (Ru-
(back-propagation; Fogelman Soulie et al., 1989), or
melhart & McClelland, 1986). As a general rule, such
selective attention with top-down feedback control
networks are built with neuron-like interconnected
(neocognition, Fukushima, 1980: ART; Grossberg,
units, with connective efficiencies that change ac-
1988).
cording to locally available signals. The whole net-
Human processing abilities are mainly due to the
work learns to produce adaptive functions such as
cerebral cortex. Direct modeling of the neuronal cir-
recognition, with some similarities to certain brain
cuit in this complex structure is difficult: at the cel-
properties such as associative memories (Rumelhart
lular level, the cortical tissue includes different
& McClelland, 1986).
neuronal types, each with a defined pattern of con-
Connectionist models based upon mathematical
nectivity, and different input-output functions due
formalisms share common features with real neural
to a variety of transmitters and ionic channels. Con-
networks. For instance, both have associative prop-
sequently, models that attempt to simulate the cortex
erties and content-addressable memories (Minsky &
at the single-neuron level tend to become too com-
Papert, 1969; Kohonen, 1984), adaptive matching
plex to be implemented and mathematically con-
between external inputs, and internal "attractors" in
trolled.
recursive networks (Hopfield, 1982). Multilayered
The basic idea presented in this paper is to pro-
gressively shape a processing unit formed by a small
Requests for reprints should be sent to Yevs Burnod, De- group of neurons corresponding to a morphofunc-
partment of Neuroscience de la Vision, Institut des Neurosciences, tional substrate; in the cortex, this multicellular unit
Bat. C 6dine 6tage, 9, Quai St. Bernard, Paris 5dine, France, has been defined as the cortical column (Mountcas-

15
16
tie, 1978; Hubel & Wiesel, 1977: Szentagothai, 1975)
which is a repetitive circuit perpendicular to the cor-
tical surface.
We thus describe a new connectionist approach,
with a processing unit which does not correspond to
a neuron but to a cortical column (Burnod, 1988).
The main problem is to determine which mathe-
matical operations could model in a simple way the
basic functions of such a multicellular unit (Shaw.
1988). Two sources of inspiration are relevanl.
The first one is neurobiological; the model has to
be biologically plausible: its architectural and func-
tional characteristics have been determined in the
light of neurobiological considerations (see justifi-
cations in section 2). Even if the cortex is far from
being understood, it is possible to use general prin-
ciples to define the main types of inputs, outputs,
and interactions.
The second problem is cognitive; the processing
unit combines essential features for human-like data
processing, but with parallel and distributed repre-
sentations.
Consequently, the proposed unit will be inter-
preted both in terms of neuronal activity and in telms
of data processing.
In this paper, we attempt to model this basic cor--
tical function via a minimal set of rules, which never-
theless perform more elaborate functions than
individual neurons.
A formal network is developed, inspired from bi-
ological findings on the cerebral cortex (Burnod,
1988); this unit can be used to build large multilay-
ered networks for general artificial intelligence (AI)
tasks such as pattern recognition (Alexandre et al.,
1989) or reasoning.
2. BIOLOGICAL INSPIRATION
The processing unit is designed to be in direct cor-
respondance with the "cortical column," a stereo-
typed interneuronal circuit (about 100 /2m wide)
whose main characteristics are repeated throughout
the cortex (Mountcastle, 1978; Szentagothai, 1975).
These clusters of interconnected cells are not defined
by anatomical boundaries, but rather from their ho-
mogeneous activities: when the firing frequency of
cortical neurons is recorded in response to specific
stimuli (Mountcastle, 1978; Hubel & Wiesel, 1977),
or during stereotyped behaviour (Evarts & Tanji,
1974), homogeneous activities reveal sets of cells ar-
ranged in vertical clusters or columns. It is thus pos-
sible to delimit groups of highly interconnected cells
sharing the same set of inputs and outputs (Szenta-
gothai, 1975; Jones, 1981). The lateral width of this
basic unit is determined by the functional homoge-
neity of component pyramidal neurons, in general
due to the intersection between subsets of connective
stripes (Hubel & Wiesel, 1977).
L Alexandre, E Guyot, J.-P. Hal(m, and K Burnoa
Behavioral tasks, such as pattern recognition~ can
be conceived as involving several sets of laterally
interconnected columns working in parallel (like cor-
tical maps), which effect serial processing on infor-
mation originating from the cnvir~mment.
2.1. Architecture
The cortex (and thus, the column) has a six-layered
organization. We, like others (Ballard, 1986), have
chosen to group these six layers into three major
input-output divisions. The model unit thus has three
divisions in direct correspondance with the three ma-
jor input-output divisions of tea! cortical columns
(Mountcastle, 1978; Jones, 1981):
I. The pyramidal neurons of upper layers (layers
2 and 3) are specialized in cortico-cortical con-
nections that form direct or indirect connections
between any two columns (Szentagothai, 1975;
Jones, 1981); the upper division of the unit will
provide a similar set of connections. These con-
nections will be named internal input and internal
output (see, for example, Figure 1).
, The intermediate layer (layer 4) receives the
main sensory inputs, from two different sources:
either directly from the thalamus which provides
information from the "external world";
or from other cortical areas involved in earlier
stages of sensory processing: connectivity upon
this division produces a progressive integration
ol sensory information, by a divergence-con-
vergence resulting in a progressive increase in
the size of the receptive fields (Van Essen &
Maunsell, 1983; Zeki & Shipp, 1988).
The intermediate division of the model will also
have an external input which includes feed-for-
ward connections.
. The pyramidal neurons of the lower layers (layer
5 and 6) are more specialized to effect "actions"
toward the external world or controls upo n the
information it produces (Zeki & Shipp, 1988;
Van Essen & Maunsell, 1983):
they project to subcortical structures and com-
mand different levels of actions and behavioural
adaptations, and
they participate in the feedback projection to
previous cortical areas and can thus effect se-
lective control of this sensory information flow.
The lower division of the unit will also provide
an external output which also includes feedback
connections.
The Cortical Column 17

Within each area, a column is connected from Wiesel, 1977), or linked with ongoing behavior
both upper and lower layers to neighboring columns (in associative areas; Mountcastle, Andersen, &
of the same "primary indice" (as defined in Ballard, Motter, 1981), or resulting in command of a
1986; e.g., in area 17, the same retinotopic position), movement (in motor areas; Evarts & Tanji,
and to more distant columns sharing similar func- 1974).
tional properties, with the same "secondary indice'"
(e.g., in area 17, the same orientation; Ballard, 1986; . Finally, we include a nul activity state (E0),
Gilbert & Wiesel, 1981). which describes the effects of inhibitory pro-
The three divisions of our unit will thus respect cesses.
major outlines of the cortical connectivity between
columns. Its connections can be used to produce a
2.3. Activation Rules
multilayered network (like a multilayered percep-
tron) but with feedback pathways (like recursive net- Activation rules of the unit will model input-output
works; e.g., Hopfield nets). As columns, the units transformations performed by a column using these
are not fully interconnected; a column is connected three activity levels; they are summarized in Figure
to a limited and rather constant number of cortical 1 which details activities of the two output divisions
columns (Mountcastle, 1978; Szentagothai, 1975). (internal and external for respectively upper and
The general organization of the columns in the lower layers) depending upon activity levels of the
cortex displays cytoarchitectonical variations, such two main inputs (internal and external, respectively
as the relative thicknesses of the six layers. These to upper and intermediate layers) and the previous
variations are introduced in the unit, which has sim- state of the column. Such activation rules will match
ilar parameters; for example, increasing the width of the following three important features of cortical
layer IV (thalamic input) in receptive areas is taken physiology.
into account by changing the weights of the external
input of the unit (see Figure 1). Conditional inhibitions. Strong lateral inhibitions
are observed in the cortex when produced by fo-
2.2. Levels of Activity cal, well-patterned stimuli although there are also
direct corticocortical excitatory connections
In the cortex it is necessary to consider different (Mountcastle, 1978; Hubel & Wiesel, 1977). In a
states of activity to describe with minimal complexity cortical column, inhibitory and excitatory inter-
several important features, such as selective atten- neurons are branched in parallel on the direct
tion, anticipation, or output actions which result in connections between cortical and thalamic inputs
reentrant feedback inputs. Considering all-or-none
activity, like in Hopfield nets (Hopfield, 1982), is
insufficient in the case of the cortex. In our unit, we
Inputs , prior Outputs
will distinguish three states of activity in correspond- InternallExtemal state IntemallExtemal Comments Depends upon:
ance with three cortical functional states (see Figure E0 E0 E0,EI E0 E0 Inactivity
1): E0 E0 Motor
E0 E2 E0,E1 El E0 Associative Map
E2 E2 Sensory
1. The low level, that we will call E1 in the unit, E0 E0 Inhibition
represents moderate neuronal activities (action El E0 E0,E 1 E1 E0 Gating Learning
potential frequencies in the range of 10 spikes/ E2 E2 Triggering
sec) which are insufficient to result in output El E2 E0,E 1 E2 E2 Amplification
actions: however, such activity, mostly intra- E0 E0
E2 E0,E2 E0,E1 Inhibition
E1 E0
cortical, can reflect active processes during se- E2 E0,E2 E2 E2 E2 Reactivation
lective attention, as seen for example in parietal
areas when stimuli do not match ongoing be- FIGURE 1. Activation rules for a simple model of the comical
haviour (Mountcastle, Andersen, & Motter, column. An in-out table imposes the state of activation of
1981), and also anticipation, as seen for example the two outputs (OF,, OEJ, in the right part) when the activities
in frontal areas during waiting for a go signal of internal and external (11/,, IEi) inputs, as well as the prior
(Fuster, 1977). state of the unit, are known (left part of the table). Three
activity levels are considered: E0, inhibition (or FALSE); El,
low level (or PERHAPS); E2, high level (or TRUE). The six
. A higher level of activation, which we term E2 lines of the table display the different possible combinations,
(action potential frequencies with a greater mag- and are ordered by the intensity of the internal inputs (see
nitude, 50-100 Hz), models activities observed text for detailed description). When more than one internal
during sensorimotor interactions with the exter- input is active, each potential level of activation is evaluated;
the more numerous is selected to be the real level of acti-
nal world, for stimuli matching intrinsic cortical vation. In case of equality, the unit is set to the uncertain
filtering functions (in receptive areas; Hubel & state El. After learning, this case tends to disappear.
18
onto pyramidal neurons (Szentagothai, 1975;
Jones, 1981); the relation between columns is
controlled in parallel by excitatory and inhibitory
interneurons, which tend to produce nonlinear
effects, with a spatiotemporal selectivity depend-
ing upon branching patterns and channels of in-
terneurons. The combination performed by the
unit (line 5 of Figure 1) will be qualitatively dif-
ferent for different levels of activity; an increasing
level of activity can result initially in excitation
(for a low level) followed by inhibition (for a
high level). Consequently, a strong activity level
will inhibit related units with a lower activity.
Gating and amplification. Moderate cortical in-
puts have a gating effect on other inputs, for ex-
ample, on thalamic inputs (Connors, Gutnick, &
Prince, 1982; Asanuma, Waters, & Yumina,
1982). Consequently, in the unit (line 3 of Figure
1), an internal input alone will have a weak in-
fluence (at level El), but the coactivation of two
inputs will generate a strong nonlinear increase
of activity (E2).
Selective filtering oJ" inputs, As described in the
cortex, the operation upon the exernal and feed-
forward inputs will be modelled by a spatial fil-
tering process, with a central positive region and
a peripheral negative one. This type of filtering
is similar to the transfer function assumed to pro-
duce orientation selectivity in visual areas from
thalamic inputs (Hubel & Wiesel, 1977).
Combining these rules results in a prediction: cor-
tical activity will spread in the cortico-cortical net-
work (via the upper layers) for a moderate activity,
with no output outside the cortex. In contrast, a
strong local pattern of activation will have a strong
inhibitory effect on less-activated columns and will
produce a precise combination of output actions (via
lower-pyramidal neurons). Such a model gives an
interpretation of neuronal activities within the cortex
and their behavioral correlates: a higher level of well-
patterned activity corresponds to reaching a goal,
whereas lower activity levels correspond to a search-
ing process (propagation of activity) or an attentive
state.
2.4. Learning Rules
Local learning rules, such as the Hebb rule or the
delta rule, enable neural nets to learn global in-out
functions; mathematical generalization of these rules
for multilayered networks was provided with back-
propagation algorithms. Such algorithms have been
used to model the transformations performed by
cortical areas (Zipser & Andersen, 1988). But
generalization of learning rules such as the back-
propagation algorithm is based upon mathematical
E Alexandre, l-i Guyot, .]-E ttato:a and Y Bumod
properties and has no simple physiological correlates
at the neuronal level.
It is possible, however, to define learning rules
which match the following features of the cortical
network, both at the global and local levels.
The global logic of the learning rules corresponds
to operant conditioning: if a strongly active col-
umn participates in an action outside the cortex,
and if this external action reactivates the inputs
of this column (equivalent to a " t~cward,'' or more
generally, to a "goal"). this input will gain b\.
learning a new influence: whet~ it has a low ac-
tivation (corresponding to :l 'drive"), it sclec.-
tively activates columns whose actions were
previously efficient in satislying the drive state,
Local learning rules correspond mostly to acti\-
ity-dependent plasticity of cortico--cortical path-
ways: these pathways are mediated by glutamate
and involve receptors with potentiating proper-
ties (Barrionuevo & Brown, 1983). This plasticity
occurs when a strong depolarization of the cell
(upper-pyramidal neurons) is followed by a
strong reactivation of its inputs (due to glutamate
release). Long-term changes in the efficacy of this
pathway will increase the influence of moderate
cortico-cortical inputs (gating properties), but
will not influence the other combinations, p a r t >
ularly with higher inputs.
Consequently, we will differentiate four stages of
learning that can be easily interpreted as activity-
dependent changes in the different types of cor-
tical interneurons. The prediction made by con-
sidering this unit as a model of the cortical column
is that different types of interneurons can modify
their transmission efficiencies ~or specific acti-
vation patterns which depend upon the specific
input-output connectivities of each type of cell.
The learning rules of the unit (Figure 2) sum-
marize the overall long-term activity-dependent
changes of neural transmissions within and be-
tween columns, mainly by their global effects oll
the input-output roles. We do not take into ac-
count synaptic weights from ~,euron to neuron,
but transmission coefficients between input and
output divisions of the units. Figure 2 (in the
right-hand side) shows how a moderate internal
input (from a unit A, "presynaptic") can produce
four different effects on the target unit (B, which
is the learning unit), depending upon previous
patterns of activities. Critical features for learning
(left part of Figure 3) are time coupling and states
of activity, measured by two "repetition factors"
called P2 and P 0 : P 2 represents the probability
that the learning unit B is active (in state E2)
The Cortical Column 19

Outputs of i when: pathway between cortico-cortical inputs and

Repetition External input = E0 lower-layer output cells. Stabilization of gat-
Factor Internal input = E1 ing could come from the competitive changes
POl Internal I External in excitatory and inhibitory vertically ori-
E0,E1 E0 Random ented interneurons which can control the
1 0 E0 EO Inhibition coupling between upper and lower layers of
<1 >0 E1 E0 the column.
Gating
0 1 E2 E2 Triggering . Triggering: If the unit is always strongly ac-
tive before a strong input (P2 = 1), this in-
FIGURE 2. Learning rules. This table shows the functional put, when moderate, will gain a very strong
consequences (right part of the table) of the long-term triggering effect that will result in a strong
changes of transmission produced by two patterns of activ-
ities (repetition factor, in the left part of the table): P0 j, is the output. The behavioral interpretation is that
conditional probability that the unit i receives a strong in- possible goals can directly trigger actions
ternal input j when it was previously inhibited; P21 is the which were always effective. This learning
conditional probability that a strong internal activation (E2) stage corresponds to the connective logic of
occurs when the unit i is already strongly active (E2). The vertically oriented disinhibitory interneu-
four lines describe the four learning stages and the four
possible resulting states of connections (detailed in the text). rons.

The learning logic of this model is somewhat dif-

ferent from other connectionist models and gives
before a strong input (state E2) from unit A;
a possible interpretation of the activity in the ce-
conversely, P0 measures the inactive state of the
rebral cortex.
learning unit B, before similar strong input from
A. Consequences of learning (in the right-hand
Within this framework, every strong cortical
side of Figure 2) are only visible upon moderate
activation of a cortical column can be viewed as a
inputs (El). The four learning cases can be in-
logical equilibrium state (a goal), due to lateral
terpreted as follows:
inhibition; for example, recognition corresponds to
1. Random: Before learning, a moderate input well-patterned activity (E2 or E0) in a cortical re-
has weak and random effects. gion. Conversely, a moderate lcvel of activity which
persists represents possible goals and thus an atten-
2. Inhibition: If the unit is always inactive before
tive state before recognition (a specific subset of
a strong activation of a cortical input (P0 =
competitive stable states are possible); in this case,
1), this input will gain by learning an inhib-
activation rules result in a continuous search (or wait-
itory anticipatory effect. Behavioral interpre-
ing) for cortical actions, adapted to the environment
tation of this rule is an increased inhibitory
(match between cortical and thalamic inputs), which
influence of possible goals toward actions
can result in attaining an equilibrium state, defining
that happened to be always inhibited before
for example a full recognition (E2-E0). Further-
a success. The prediction for cortical physi-
more, the learning rules enable intracortical connec-
ology is that inhibitory interneurons can be
tions to learn context-dependent combinations of
modified like pyramidal neurons: when they
cortical actions which are efficient in reaching this
are first strongly active (no action is made)
equilibrium.
and then when they are reactivated by cor-
At the local level, activity-dependent changc~ oc-
tico-cortical inputs (success).
cur for in-out combinations which do not have the
3. Gating: When the unit is sometimes strongly same temporal sequence as Hebb rules: the cell is
active (and sometimes inactive) before a first depolarized and then reactivated by its inputs.
strong cortical input, there will be an increase Such temporal sequences are more compatible with
in the gating effect of this input, when mod- the known physiology of glutamate receptors. This
erate; however, another coactive input will type of learning is not competitive with other mech-
still be needed to produce a strong output. anisms closer to Hebb rules which could provide a
The behavioral interpretation is an increase more sensitive adjustment between inputs and out-
of the gating influence of possible goals to- puts.
ward units which sometimes were efficient in
reaching such goals. Prediction is an in-
3. I N F O R M A T I O N - P R O C E S S I N G
creased efficacy of the excitatory neurons,
MODELIZATION
mainly upper-pyramidal neurons, as de-
scribed in the preceding paragraph; such neu- The processing unit that we propose has been inter-
rons are branched in parallel upon the direct preted in terms of neuronal activity; we give now a
20 E Alexandre, E Guyot, J.-P. Haton, and Y. Burnod

complementary interpretation in terms of data pro-
cessing.
We propose a realization with six main features,
sufficient to specify a connectionist network (Ru-
melhart & McCielland, 1986). A description and a
data-processing interpretation are given for each
characteristic.
Oli(t), OEi(t), where j and k represent the connected
units and t stands for the time.
This distinction corresponds to the upper layers
of the cortex for internal relations, to the lower layers
for external outputs, and to the intermediate one for
external inputs.

3.1. Architecture 3.2. Connectivity

In human-like functions, at least three types of in-
formation can be distinguished: stimuli, actions, and
concepts. They are separately expressed in the net-
work:
• stimuli come from the external world via specific
receptors,
• external outputs toward the external world will
trigger specific actions,
concepts are represented by distributed activities
in the network and interact by internal input-
output relations.
The network is not fully interconnected; a unit is
connected to a limited and rather constant number
of other units in four linking ways that take into
account the two types of input-output, as illustrated
in Figure 3:
• A unit has nl internal input-output connections
with neighboring units in the same map.
• n2 internal input-output connections with other
maps,
• each unit has an external output which is either
a feedback or a response outside the network.

Inputs and outputs of a processing unit i are thus the external input is either a stimulus or a feed-
divided into an internal component (for concepts) forward input from other maps. These external
and an external one (for stimuli and actions), as connections (both input and output) are orga-
shown in Figure 1; they are denoted by II~ (t), IE~ (t), nized in continuous overlapping receptive fields.

ssA

Connections
Internal Input/output intra-areal

k Internal input/output inter-areal

Rt
] External input (input mask)

( External output

FIGURE 3. Organization and connectivity of the processing levers (model.r.: cortical a r e a s ) ~ in the simulation. This
network tot visual ~ i has ~
arrows show feed-forward and ~ internal
sensory areas. Transfer functions of milts in the ~
in o w r ~ ~ ~ ~ by~ ~ l . ~
units in associative area, both extra- and Intlll4reel.
The Cortical Column
The internal neighboring connections can be re-
garded as potential pathways between concepts
where information propagates step by step.
3.3. Activity Levels
A three-valued logic is a minimal modelization of
human-like processing, in order to take into account
anticipatory and attentive behaviours. Moreover, the
three values directly correspond to the three states
of activity described in the neurobiological model
(EO, E l , E2):
E2 stands for the " T R U E " value: depending
upon its localization, it can be interpreted as a
"sure" stimulus, action, or concept.
E0 stands for the " F A L S E " value: in the neu-
robiological model, it is often due to an inhibi-
tion.
E1 stands for " P E R H A P S " : it can be interpreted
as a hypothesis. Generally, when a hypothesis is
emitted, the system will search to validate it; tran-
sition from E1 to E2 stands for the validation of
such a hypothesis, that is a decision.
The intermediate state of activity can propagate in
the network; this propagation allows a limited num-
ber of connections between units. The communica-
tion between distant units can be performed by
spread of activity from one unit to the next. Prop-
agation of state E1 is thus interpreted as propagation
of hypothesis, that is, an active search.
3.4. Activation Rules
The unit has to compute its outputs (internal and
external) as a function of its inputs, of its prior state,
and of previous learning. The two following functions
have to be defined:
OL(t) = f(IIi(t),IE~(t ), OE,(t - 1),P0J,P2 ', ),
OE,(t) = g(IF(t), IE~(t), OE,(t - 1),P0',P2',),
where j =- 1. . . . nl + n2; k indexes the external
receptive field and P~ measure previous learning, as
described below.
At time t, for each unit i, a global external input,
denoted by IEi, is computed as a function of the
IE~(t). It measures the correspondance between the
input mask of a unit i, defined a priori without learn-
ing, and its external inputs IE~; IEi is set either to
E2 (exact correspondance) or E0 (too much differ-
ence).
We then compute local outputs (OE~, OI~) for
each internal input II~ modulated by IEi thanks to
the truth table shown in Figure 1.
21
Finally, it is necessary to define a rule to combine
several synchronous internal inputs at time t for a
unit i.
If the event "internal output j of a unit i at time
t in state Ex" is denoted by OI ~,x(t), and the "number
of event Ollx(t) f o r j = 1 t o n l + n2" is denoted
by nx, then OIi(t) = Ex if max(n0, nl, n2) = nx.
In case of equality, the unit is set to El, uncertain
state,
The global external output is computed in the
same way.
This truth table (Figure 1) is built from the neu-
robiological data and is a model of neuronal inter-
actions in a cortical column. Moreover, in the light
of previous interpretations, the table corresponds to
a logical data-processing mechanism. Only the cases
which modify the outputs of the unit are taken into
account.
Line 5 illustrates the inhibition mechanism, that
selectively limits the number of active units. Val-
idation of a hypothesis (decision) results in a
suppression of competitive hypothesis.
By contrast, in line 6, two different decisions,
when successive, are not competitive; further-
more, this temporal relation will result in learn-
ing.
Line 3 is learning dependent, according to the
coefficients P0{ and P2~ (see "learning rules").
When a hypothesis is emitted, its influence de-
pends upon previous experiences as described in
the learning rules section. It can suppress other
possibilities (E0), emit a new hypothesis (El) or
trigger a decision (E2).
• Line 4 shows how a hypothesis is validated when
it matches an external stimulus.
In line 2, three different kinds of topologic maps
are distinguished in the network, each kind de-
voted to a specific step in the information anal-
ysis. A stimulus will imply a certitude in "sensory
maps," a hypothesis in "associative maps," but
cannot directly trigger an action in "motor maps."
3.5. Learning Rules
Like activation rules, learning rules are both consis-
tent with neurobiological data (see Section 2) and
with a data-processing interpretation. As in stan-
dard neural nets, learning is locally computed. Figure
2 shows how an internal input j (from a unit Af ) can
produce four different effects on the target unit A,
(right part of the table), depending upon the prob-
ability of their coactivation expressed by the repe-
tition factors P21 and P0 I. If N(e) measures the
22
number of occurrences of the event e from tO up to
current time, then
p0~ = N(IU2(t).and. OI,0(t - d t ) )
N(II~2(t))
and
p21 = N(IU2(t).and. O1,2(t - dt))
N(II ~,2(t))
where dt stands for a little delay.
The four cases may be interpreted as follow:
• Before learning, propagation of hypothesis is ran-
dom,
During learning, if a concept (Aj in state E0)
never participates to the validation of another
concept (A i, E2), the latter will gain an antici-
patory inhibitory effect (P0',I = 1).
But if the concept Ag is sometimes linked with
the validation of the concept A/, learning will
result in a selective propagation of hypothesis A,
toward A~ (0 < P0{ < 1, 0 < P2', < 1).
Finally, if the coactivation pattern is always ob-
served, a hypothesis from Aj will directly trigger
a decision of A~, even in absence of external con-
firmation (P2~ = 1).
4. THE COMPUTATIONAL NETWORK
This theory, consisent with neurobiological data,
provides autonomous basic units, each computing an
output as a function of its inputs, modulated by its
internal features which can change with learning. An
implementation consists of building a network of
units and simulating the inherent parallel processing.
The network was used to recognize alphabetical
patterns (vision) and isolated words (speech recog-
nition). These two sensory functions require the
same global architecture shown in Figure 3, sum-
marized by a signification map (SM) where activity
represents the state of recognition, a sensory map I
(SMI), a sensory map II (SMII) and an associative
map (AM) (all chosen to coincide with cortical areas
which participate in a specific behavioural or cog-
nitive task).
Since each unit behaves autonomously, the net-
work is efficiently specified by the connectivity pat-
tern of each map:
The only disparity between auditory and visual
networks involves the initial encoding: a 8 × 8
grid where the letters are digitalized for visual
recognition, and for auditory recognition, a 32 x
50 grid which receives spectrograms over 32 fre-
k Alexandre, F Guyot, .f.-P. Hattm. and E Burnod
quency ranges from 0 to 8000 Hz. and from 10
to 50 frames allocated to the word.
Connections between initial encoding and SMI
are unidirectional and retinotopically (or tono-
topically) organized. In SMI, units respond to the
input, selectively oriented (Hubel & Wiesel,
1977) into local 3 × 3 overlapping receptive
fields, as illustrated in Figure 3, Similarly, in the
auditory case. units are specialized for time and
frequency range.
As illustrated in Figure 3, each unit in SMI re-
ceives its "'external" 3 x 3 inputs from a field of
SMI (feed-forward), sends back its actions to
SMI, exchanges symetrically its internal inputs
and outputs with its neighbors in SMII, and is
connected with a group of adjacent units in AM.
In the associative map AM. each unit carries out
a coactivation test between two neighborhoods
taken from SMII and SM, and has reciprocal links
with adjacent units in AM (internal relation).
The map SM contains either a set of 26 units for
visual recognition of letters (see Figure 3) or l0
units for number recognition in speech process-
ing; these units are reciprocally connected and
receive inputs from groups of adjacent units in
AM.
4.1. Processing
Initially, every coefficient in the network is unde-
termined and requires no a priori choice. In a typical
learning session, a given pattern (a character or a
spectrogram) is presented to the receptor and all the
units in SM are inhibited lEO), except the one cor-
responding to the solution which is forced to E2 (sta-
ble state). Information propagates and interferes in
the whole network, from these two external inputs,
according to the connectivity scheme and the func-
tioning rules. Eight evaluations are necessary for the
network to come back to a stable state. During the
learning phase, each unit reaching the stable state
(E2) brings its relations with other connected units
up to date (coefficients P0 and P2), following the
learning rules. After learning, these coefficients de-
limit new functional sets of units which correspond
to invariant characteristics of the external world:
During the recognition process, an unknown pat-
tern is presented to the receptor and all the units
in SM are set to E1 (unstable state, desired goal),
in order to trigger parallel analysis. The network
evolves until one unit in SM reaches the stable state
E2 (reached goal, solution). The middle set of units
AM allows association, through its connectivity, be-
The Cortical Column
tween the invariant characteristics in the two sen-
sorimotor fields (visual or audio and significative).
AM changes the activity distribution in SMI and
SMll. From an unstable state ( E l ) in all units of SM,
the network converges toward a learned distribution
(pattern) in SMI and SMII, and a stable state in SM,
that is a subset of highly active units (E2), inhibiting
(E0) all the other units in this area.
4.2. Character Recognition
For the first session, thc learning corpus is consti-
tuted of 26 upper-case characters, binary digitized
on a 8 × 8 grid. During learning, each letter is pre-
sented twice to the network. As described in previous
studies (Fogelman et al., 1989), the test corpus has
been built up from the initial letters by randomly
inverting n pixels (n varying from 1 to 25) in each
image. For the second session, the network trains
with noisy letters, each being presented with 6, 9,
and 12 randomly inverted pixels (Fogelman Soulie
et al., 1989). The recognition rate is reported in Fig-
ure 4a as a function of noise. The performances are
rather close, whatever the learning corpus. The slight
difference between the two graphs in Figure 4a re-
veals the innate and implicit generalization abilities
of the network. Let us mention here that during noisy
character recognition, most of the errors were also
committed by the human subject, owing to the ratio
between the number of randomly inverted pixels and
the number of pixels differentiating one letter from
an other (confusion between a noisy E and F, or a
noisvOandO...)
4.3. Speech Recognition
The learning and the test sets were prepared as fol-
lows. Thirty speakers recorded four versions of the
10 numbers. The recordings were made with no par-
ticular precaution (background noise, no starting
synchronization, no constant rate of s p e e c h . . . ) . A
Fast-Fourier transform (FFT) was carried out over
8-ms frames. As a result, each token was represented
as a set of 1(t-50 frames each containing 32 positive
values representing the 32 linear frequency ranges
from 0 to 8000 Hz. In order to reduce the variation
of the number of frames for a same number (begin-
ning of each token not located, pronounciation
duration . . . ) , a temporal compression of the
spectrogram eliminates every frame too close to the
preceding one and then transforms the 32 linear fre-
quency ranges into 16 physiological f r e q u e n c y
ranges. This array of (16 × n) values (n varying from
10 to 25 after compression) is proposed as an initial
encoding to sensory map I.
For a speaker-dependent trial, the learning was
done only once for each of the 40 spectrograms
23
lOO%
75%
50%
25%
Number of invertedpixels
i i i i
5 l0 15 20
(a)
100 %
75%
50% J
learned speakers
others
25%
Number of speakers
i
5 10 15 20
(b)
FIGURE 4. Visual and auditory performances of the network.
Figure 4a- The visual case (upper diagram). This figure shows
the recognition rate as a function of noise level. The network
was trained on the whole alphabet, with or without noise,
and gave very close performances for the recognition of
noisy letters. Let us mention here that the system needs only
10 sec to learn the whole alphabet. Figure 4b: The auditory
case (lower diagram). This shows the recognition rate as a
function of the number of speakers in the learning set. In
both cases, the network was trained on the 10 numbers and
was tested either with the learned speakers, or with unknown
speakers. If only one speaker is learned, the network rec-
ognizes him or her perfectly but often fails (50%) with another
speaker. When more speakers are learned, the performances
slightly decrease for the learned speakers (85% for 20
learned speakers), as the number of tokens correctly labeled
for unknown people increases up to a similar rate (80%), and
toward a supposed common limit for the two curves,
(4 × 10). The network always recognized the learned
tokens, and made an average of 3% errors for the
test tokens (Elman & Zipser, 1988).
For a speaker-independent trial, the network was
trained on the 40 spectrograms from 2 to 2(1 people.
The network's responses were tested either with
learned subjects or with unknown subjects (Peeling,
Moore, & Tomlinson, 1986). The recognition rate
for subjects included in the learned set is reported
in Figure 4b. It starts from a maximum rate for one
speaker, and becomes stable to an average rate of
85% for many speakers. Regarding the recognition
rate for unknown people, it grows from 50% for one
learned speaker, up to 80% when the learning set
contains many speakers. An unknown speaker may
have all versions of a number refused, because of his
particular pronunciation. Isolated errors are often
due to confusion between two fricatives or two vow-
els.
Figure 5 illustrates the internal representation of
learning through probabilistic coefficients.
 24 [ Alexandre, E Guyot. J.-P. tfat<;n, and E Burnod

g
UJ

N'H"
:+: :+:÷:
. '5:::::'+::
.'...

': iiiiii i
I
: !

,~ , , + :!'!:!:i? , ..... ~T.~I~_~__.~_,.~. ' ....

lIME TIME lIME ~IME
M~NIAE REPHESENIAIION 0F A 2 MENIAL REPRESEN~AI|0N 0F A SONOGIRAM OF A 3 RECOGNIZED SONOGRAM DF A 3 RECOGNIZED

Pr ubab i ba'~pI

FIGURE 5. Internal and external representation. This figure represents configurations in the network for recognition of isolated
words, in order to Illustrate the basis on which the matching operation is effected. The two pictures on the left show the
memorized coefficients between units of AA and two different units of SA recognizing a "2" (first picture) or s "3" (second
picture). This "mental representoUon" is obtained after learning 20 x 4 occurrences of the digits. By contrast, the two pictures
on the right ~ the Initial o n c ~ s for two spectrograms, both corresponding to the digit "3," and produced by two
different speakers (note their disparity). These occurrences: are recognized by the stored coefficients of the mental represen-
tation of "3" (second picture).

4.4. Spatiotemporai Complexity demonstrates levels of performance comparable to

For vision, the network has 1200 units with 6 con-
nections per unit; for speech recognition the net-
work's size was increased to 4000 units because of
the bigger size of the input information flow; the
number of connections per unit is identical. The sim-
ulations reported here were run on a Sun 3/50. The
learning is very fast, so the network needs 15 s to
learn the 40 spectrograms of one speaker, and 10 s
to learn the 26 letters. Recognition requires in both
cases about 0.5 s.
5. CONCLUSION
Several simulations of the processing effected by the
cortical areas have been proposed using multilayered
neuronal networks and back-propagation algorithms
(Zipser & Andersen, 1988; Lehky & Sejnowsky,
1988). But the principles of these algorithms are far
from biological mechanisms. Our approach is quite
different: we propose a general processing unit which
is based upon neuronal properties in the cerebral
cortex and fits experimental data; furthermore, this
unit is common to all cortical areas and could be
used for a variety of adaptative and cognitive func-
tions. Simulations show the ability of the cortical
column to effect associative recognition, which is an
adaptative function of biological systems commonly
implemented by artificial neural networks. Figure 4
the best available algorithms; moreover, learning
speed is much faster than in algorithms used in other
multilayered networks (for example, back-propaga-
tion). This work illustrates the fact that it is possible
to elaborate models integrating three basic proper-
ties: (i) the basic rules and the construction of thc
network are physiologically plausible; (ii) the rules
are simple (in-out tables); and (iii) the network per-
forms rapid pattern recognition with an efficient
learning as shown here for both visual and auditory
inputs. A promising direction is the capacity of such
models to result in sophisticated behaviors (Burnod,
1988), as we shall attempt to illustrate in on-going
and future work. This includes (i) construction of
functional networks with goals and subgoals to gen-
erate planning, (ii) progressive learning of symbolic
reasoning, (iii) combination of networks which in-
clude several information pathways with specific ex-
ternal inputs and outputs for the different sensory-
motor fields (Guyot, Alexandre, & Haton, 1989),
and (iv) integration of time (Guyot et al., 1989).
REFERENCES
Alexandre, F., Burnod, Y., Guyot, F., & Haton, ,L P. (1989). La
colonne corticale, unit6 de base pour des r6seau× multi-
couches. Cornpte Rendu a l'AcadOnie des Sciences, Paris,
309(III), 259-264.
 The Cortical Column
Asanuma, H., Waters, R. S., & Yumina, H. (1982). Physiological
properties of neurons projecting from area 3a to area 4 of
feline cerebral cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 48(4),
1(148-1057.
Ballard, D. H. (1986). Cortical Connections and parallel pro-
cessing: Structure and function. The Behavioral and Brain Sci-
ences, 9, 67-120.
Barrionuevo. G., & Brown, T. H. (1983). Associative long-term
potentiation in hippocampal slices. Proceedings of the National
Academy ~/ Sciences, Neurobiology, 80, 7347-7351.
Burnod, Y. (1988). An adaptive neural network: The cerebral cor-
tex. Paris: Masson.
Connors, B. W., Gutnick, M. J., & Prince, D. A. (1982). Elec-
trophysiological properties of neocortical neurons in vitro.
Journal ()f Neurophysiology, 48(6), 1302-1320.
Elman, J. L., & Zipser, D. (1988). Learning the hidden structure
of speech. Journal ~/" Acoustical Socie O, ~[ America, 83(4),
1615 1626.
Ew~rts, E. V., & Tanji, J. (1974). Gating of motor cortex reflexes
by prior instruction. Brain Research, 71,479-494,
Fogelman Soulie, F., Gallinari, P., Le Cun, Y., & Tbiria, S. (1989).
Network learning. In Y. Kodratoff & R. Michalski (Eds.),
Machine learning (Vol. 3). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kauf-
mann.
Fukushima, K. (1980). Neoeognitron: A self-organizing neural
network for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by
shift in position. Biological Cybernetics, 36, 193-202.
Fuster. J. M. (1977). Unit activity in the prefrontal cortex during
dclaved response performance: Neuronal correlates of short-
term memory. Journal ()/"Neurophysiology, 36.61-78.
Gilbert, C. D., & Wiescl, T. N, (1981). Laminar specialization
and intracortical connections in cat primary visual cortex. In
F. Schmitt et al. (Eds.), The organization of the cerebral cortex.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grossberg, S. (1988). Nonlinear neural networks: Princi-
ples, mechanisms, and architectures. Neural Networks, 1,
I7-61.
Guyot, F., Alexandre, F., & Haton, J. P. (1989). Toward a con-
tinuous model of the cortical column: Application to speech
recognition. In Proceedings' (~[ the International Congress (~/"
Acoustic and Speech Processing, Glasgow. New York: IEEE.
Guyot, F., Alexandre F., Haton, J. P., & Burnod, Y. (1989). A
potentially powerful connectionist unit: The cortical column.
NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Neuro Computing,
Les Arcs. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
25
Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural network and physical systems with
emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings" of the
National Academy of Sciences, 79, 2554-2558.
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1977). Functional architectures
of macaque monkey visual cortex, Ferrier Lecture. Proceed-
ings of the Royal Society of London B, 198, 1-59.
Jones, E. G. (1981). Identification and classification of intrinsic
circuit elements in thc neocortex. In G. M. Edelman, E. Gall,
& W. M. Cowan (Eds), Dynamic as'peers (?[neocortical.[unc-
tions. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kohonen, T. (1984). Self-organization and associative memoo,.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lehky, S. R., & Sejnowsky, T. J. (1988). Network model of shape-
from-shading: Neural function arises from both receptive and
projective fields. Nature, 333, 452-455.
Minsky, M., & Papert, S. (1969). Perc~7)trons. Cambridge MA:
MIT Press.
Mountcastle, V. B. (1978). An organizing principle ]?)r cerebral
Junction. The unit module and the dis'tributed svstem, The mind-
[id brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mountcastle, V. B., Andersen. R. A., & Motter, 13. C. (1981).
The influence of attentive fixation upon the excitability of the
light-sensitive neurons of the posterior parietal cortex. Journal
~f Neurosciences, 1, 1218-1235.
Peeling, S. M.. Moore, R. K., & Tomlinson, M. J. (1986). The
multi-layer perceptron as a tool for speech pattern processing
research. In Proceedings of the IOA Autumn ConJoren¢es" on
Speech and Hearing. London: Controller HMSO.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel dis'tributed
processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shaw, G. L., Silverman, F. J.. & Pearson, J. C. (1988). Trion
model of cortical organization and the search of the code of
short=term memory and of information processing. In J. De-
lacour & J. C. S. Levy (Eds.), Systems with h'arning and mem-
ory abilities. Elsevier, North-Holland.
Szentagothai, J. (1975). The "module concept" in cerebral cortex
architecture. Brain Research, 95, 475-496.
Van Essen, D. C., & MaunselL J, H R. (1983). Hierarchical
organization and functional streams in the visual cortex. 7?ends
in Neurosciences, 6, 9,370-375.
Zeki, S., & Shipp, S. (1988). The functional logic of cortical
connections. Nature 335, 311-316.
Zipser, D., & Andersen, R. A. (1988). A back-propagation pro-
grammed nework that simulates responses properties of a sub-
set of posterior parietal neurons. Nature 331,679-684,