I haven't read the paper yet, but I understand that both in decreased and increased potential states there is a "decay" to the resting potential, as shown in the graph (1:55).
Yes, the paper states that "whenever a spike arrives, the potential gets excited but decays again if no other spikes are registered close in time". This decay is exponential and depends on a set of hyperparameters.
I have not investigated moving objects. The performance will likely be worse but you could augment the training dataset with moving objects to improve robustness
Is there a decay on the potential over time if the threshold isn't reached?
I haven't read the paper yet, but I understand that both in decreased and increased potential states there is a "decay" to the resting potential, as shown in the graph (1:55).
Yes, the paper states that "whenever a spike arrives, the potential gets excited but decays again if no other spikes are registered close in time". This decay is exponential and depends on a set of hyperparameters.
of course it will, the potential will also be reset to a very low level if the threshold is reached.
hello, It can works with moving object?
I have not investigated moving objects. The performance will likely be worse but you could augment the training dataset with moving objects to improve robustness
In the paper i notice that you used generated synthetic dataset . can you explain it?
he explained at 3:27
ag