comparison between frame-constrained fix-pixel-value and frame-free spiking-dynamic-pixel convnets for visual processing

comparison between frame-constrained fix-pixel-value and frame-free spiking-dynamic-pixel convnets for visual processing

;Clément eFarabet;Rafael ePaz;Jose ePerez-Carrasco;Carlos eZamarreño;Alejandro eLinares-Barranco;Yann eLeCun;Eugenio eCulurciello;Teresa eSerrano-Gotarredona;Bernabe eLinares-Barranco
Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry 2012 Vol. 6 pp. -
119
efarabet2012frontierscomparison

Abstract

Most scene segmentation and categorization architectures for the extraction of features in images and patches make exhaustive use of 2D convolution operations for template matching, template search and denoising. Convolutional Neural Networks (ConvNets) are one example of such architectures that can implement general-purpose bio-inspired vision systems. In standard digital computers 2D convolutions are usually expensive in terms of resource consumption and impose severe limitations for efficient real-time applications. Nevertheless, neuro-cortex inspired solutions, like dedicated Frame-Based or Frame-Free Spiking ConvNet Convolution Processors, are advancing real-time visual processing. These two approaches share the neural inspiration, but each of them solves the problem in different ways. Frame-Based ConvNets process frame by frame video in- formation in a very robust and fast way that requires to use and share the available hardware resources (such as: multipliers, adders). Hardware resources are fixed and time multiplexed by fetching data in and out. Thus memory bandwidth and size is important for good performance. On the other hand, spike-based convolution processors are a frame-free alternative that is able to perform convolution of a spike-based source of visual information with very low latency, which makes ideal for very high speed applications. However, hardware resources need to be available all the time and cannot be time-multiplexed. Thus, hardware should be modular, reconfigurable and expansible. Hardware implementations in both VLSI custom integrated circuits (digital and analog) and FPGA have been already used to demonstrate the performance of these systems. In this paper we present a comparison study of these two neuro- inspired solutions. A brief description of both systems is presented and also discussions about their differences, pros and cons.

Citation

ID: 160855
Ref Key: efarabet2012frontierscomparison
Use this key to autocite in SciMatic or Thesis Manager

References

Blockchain Verification

Account:
NFT Contract Address:
0x95644003c57E6F55A65596E3D9Eac6813e3566dA
Article ID:
160855
Unique Identifier:
10.3389/fnins.2012.00032
Network:
Scimatic Chain (ID: 481)
Loading...
Blockchain Readiness Checklist
Authors
Abstract
Journal Name
Year
Title
5/5
Creates 1,000,000 NFT tokens for this article
Token Features:
  • ERC-1155 Standard NFT
  • 1 Million Supply per Article
  • Transferable via MetaMask
  • Permanent Blockchain Record
Blockchain QR Code
Scan with Saymatik Web3.0 Wallet

Saymatik Web3.0 Wallet