Recently, there has been a vigorous debate concerning the nature of neural coding (Rieke et al. 1996; Stevens and Zador 1995; Shadlen and Newsome 1994). The prevailing view has been that the mean firing rate conveys all information about the sensory stimulus in a spike train and the precise timing of the individual spikes is noise. This belief is, in part, based on a lack of correlation between the precise timing of the spikes and the sensory qualities of the stimulus under study, particularly, on a lack of spike timing repeatability when identical stimulation is delivered. This view has been challenged by a number of recent studies, in which highly repeatable temporal patterns of spikes can be observed both in vivo (Bair and Koch 1996; Abeles et al. 1993) and in vitro (Mainen and Sejnowski 1994). Furthermore, application of information theory to the coding problem in the frog and house fly (Bialek et al. 1991; Bialek and Rieke 1992) suggested that additional information could be extracted from spike timing. In the absence of direct evidence for a timing code in the cerebral cortex, the role of spike timing in neural coding remains controversial.

Recently, there has been a vigorous debate concerning the nature of neural coding (Rieke et al. 1996; Stevens and Zador 1995; Shadlen and Newsome 1994). The prevailing view has been that the mean firing rate conveys all information about the sensory stimulus in a spike train and the precise timing of the individual spikes is noise. This belief is, in part, based on a lack of correlation between the precise timing of the spikes and the sensory qualities of the stimulus under study, particularly, on a lack of spike timing repeatability when identical stimulation is delivered. This view has been challenged by a number of recent studies, in which highly repeatable temporal patterns of spikes can be observed both in vivo (Bair and Koch 1996; Abeles et al. 1993) and in vitro (Mainen and Sejnowski 1994). Furthermore, application of information theory to the coding problem in the frog and house fly (Bialek et al. 1991; Bialek and Rieke 1992) suggested that additional information could be extracted from spike timing. In the absence of direct evidence for a timing code in the cerebral cortex, the role of spike timing in neural coding remains controversial.

Recently, there has been a vigorous debate concerning the nature of neural coding (Rieke et al. 1996; Stevens and Zador 1995; Shadlen and Newsome 1994). The prevailing viewhas been that the mean firing rate conveys all information about the sensory stimulus in a spike train and the precise timing of the individual spikes is noise. This belief is, in part, based on a lack of correlation between the precise timing ofthe spikes and the sensory qualities of the stimulus under study, particularly, on a lack of spike timing repeatability when identical stimulation is delivered. This view has been challenged by a number of recent studies, in which highly repeatable temporal patterns of spikes can be observed both in vivo (Bair and Koch 1996; Abeles et al. 1993) and in vitro (Mainen and Sejnowski 1994). Furthermore, application ofinformation theory to the coding problem in the frog and house fly (Bialek et al. 1991; Bialek and Rieke 1992) suggested that additional information could be extracted from spike timing. In the absence of direct evidence for a timing code in the cerebral cortex, the role of spike timing in neural coding remains controversial.

A model of the hippocampus is presented which forms rapid self -organized representations of input arriving via the perforant path, performs recall of previous associations in region CA3, and performs comparison of this recall with afferent input in region CA 1. This comparison drives feedback regulation of cholinergic modulation to set appropriate dynamics for learning of new representations in region CA3 and CA 1. The network responds to novel patterns with increased cholinergic modulation, allowing storage of new self-organized representations, but responds to familiar patterns with a decrease in acetylcholine, allowing recall based on previous representations. This requires selectivity of the cholinergic suppression of synaptic transmission in stratum radiatum of regions CA3 and CAl, which has been demonstrated experimentally. 1 INTRODUCTION A number of models of hippocampal function have been developed (Burgess et aI., 1994; Myers and Gluck, 1994; Touretzky et al., 1994), but remarkably few simulations have addressed hippocampal function within the constraints provided by physiological and anatomical data. Theories of the function of specific subregions of the hippocampal formation often do not address physiological mechanisms for changing dynamics between learning of novel stimuli and recall of familiar stimuli.

A model of the hippocampus is presented which forms rapid self -organized representations of input arriving via the perforant path, performs recall of previous associations in region CA3, and performs comparison of this recall with afferent input in region CA 1. This comparison drives feedback regulation of cholinergic modulation to set appropriate dynamics for learning of new representations in region CA3 and CA 1. The network responds to novel patterns with increased cholinergic modulation, allowing storage of new self-organized representations, but responds to familiar patterns with a decrease in acetylcholine, allowing recall based on previous representations. This requires selectivity of the cholinergic suppression of synaptic transmission in stratum radiatum of regions CA3 and CAl, which has been demonstrated experimentally. 1 INTRODUCTION A number of models of hippocampal function have been developed (Burgess et aI., 1994; Myers and Gluck, 1994; Touretzky et al., 1994), but remarkably few simulations have addressed hippocampal function within the constraints provided by physiological and anatomical data. Theories of the function of specific subregions of the hippocampal formation often do not address physiological mechanisms for changing dynamics between learning of novel stimuli and recall of familiar stimuli.

Four overlapping patterns (1-4) are presented sequentially.

What Does the Hippocampus Compute?: A Precis of the 1993 NIPS Workshop Computational models of the hippocampal-region provide an important method for understanding the functional role of this brain system in learning and memory. The presentations in this workshop focused on how modeling can lead to a unified understanding of the interplay among hippocampal physiology, anatomy, and behavior. One approach can be characterized as "top-down" analyses of the neuropsychology of memory, drawing upon brain-lesion studies in animals and humans. Other models take a "bottom-up" approach, seeking to infer emergent computational and functional properties from detailed analyses of circuit connectivity and physiology (see Gluck & Granger, 1993, for a review). Among the issues discussed were: (1) integration of physiological and behavioral theories of hippocampal function, (2) similarities and differences between animal and human studies, (3) representational vs. temporal properties of hippocampaldependent behaviors, (4) rapid vs. incremental learning, (5) mUltiple vs. unitary memory systems, (5) spatial navigation and memory, and (6) hippocampal interaction with other brain systems.

What Does the Hippocampus Compute?: A Precis of the 1993 NIPS Workshop Computational models of the hippocampal-region provide an important method for understanding the functional role of this brain system in learning and memory. The presentations in this workshop focused on how modeling can lead to a unified understanding of the interplay among hippocampal physiology, anatomy, and behavior. One approach can be characterized as "top-down" analyses of the neuropsychology of memory, drawing upon brain-lesion studies in animals and humans. Other models take a "bottom-up" approach, seeking to infer emergent computational and functional properties from detailed analyses of circuit connectivity and physiology (see Gluck & Granger, 1993, for a review). Among the issues discussed were: (1) integration of physiological and behavioral theories of hippocampal function, (2) similarities and differences between animal and human studies, (3) representational vs. temporal properties of hippocampaldependent behaviors, (4) rapid vs. incremental learning, (5) mUltiple vs. unitary memory systems, (5) spatial navigation and memory, and (6) hippocampal interaction with other brain systems.

Computational models of the hippocampal-region provide an important method for understanding the functional role of this brain system in learning and memory. The presentations in this workshop focused on how modeling can lead to a unified understanding of the interplay among hippocampal physiology, anatomy, and behavior. One approach can be characterized as "top-down" analyses of the neuropsychology of memory, drawing upon brain-lesion studies in animals and humans. Other models take a "bottom-up" approach, seeking to infer emergent computational and functional properties from detailed analyses of circuit connectivity and physiology (see Gluck & Granger, 1993, for a review). Among the issues discussed were: (1) integration of physiological and behavioral theories of hippocampal function, (2) similarities and differences between animal and human studies, (3) representational vs. temporal properties of hippocampaldependent behaviors,(4) rapid vs. incremental learning, (5) mUltiple vs. unitary memory systems, (5) spatial navigation and memory, and (6) hippocampal interaction with other brain systems.