A Unified Cortical Circuit Model with Divisive Normalization and Self-Excitation for Robust Representation and Memory Maintenance
Jie Su, Weiwei Wang, Zhaotian Gu, Dahui Wang, Tianyi Qian

TL;DR
This paper presents a unified cortical circuit model combining divisive normalization and self-excitation, enabling robust information encoding and stable memory retention, with applications demonstrated in noise-robust perception and Bayesian inference tasks.
Contribution
It introduces a novel recurrent neural circuit model that unifies noise-resistant processing and memory maintenance within a single framework, bridging multiple cognitive functions.
Findings
The model forms a continuous attractor with input-proportional stabilization and persistent memory states.
It effectively performs noise-robust encoding in a random-dot kinematogram paradigm.
It approximates Bayesian belief updating in a probabilistic Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.
Abstract
Robust information representation and its persistent maintenance are fundamental for higher cognitive functions. Existing models employ distinct neural mechanisms to separately address noise-resistant processing or information maintenance, yet a unified framework integrating both operations remains elusive -- a critical gap in understanding cortical computation. Here, we introduce a recurrent neural circuit that combines divisive normalization with self-excitation to achieve both robust encoding and stable retention of normalized inputs. Mathematical analysis shows that, for suitable parameter regimes, the system forms a continuous attractor with two key properties: (1) input-proportional stabilization during stimulus presentation; and (2) self-sustained memory states persisting after stimulus offset. We demonstrate the model's versatility in two canonical tasks: (a) noise-robust…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
It is interesting that the author showcases a model that is capable of being both an attractor network and a normalisation model, hence capable of sustaining persistent activities of representation while also being capable of denoising in a specific regime. Moreover, it is nice to see that there is some analytical support done for the persistent representations, as well as cross-demain demonstrations of the models’ normalization.
I do feel like the abstract is lacking in describing what the key contribution is. It feels lackluster and I can only understand this as I go further into the paper. Grammar/ Structuring/ Spelling error needs to be fixed throughout. Please revise the paper for these kinds of errors. Some examples to check: Line 70-71: “ but also forms a continuous attractor that persistently maintains those representations after input withdrawn.” Line 48: “While there exists different perspectives” Line 51-52: “
- Analytical solutions of the nonlinear neural dynamics. - Utilize the circuit to realize two cognitive tasks (Fig. 3 and 4)
### 1. The neural dynamics is over-simplified due to the lack of recurrent excitation. ### 2. The study doesn't fully utilize the analytical tractability of a minimal model to understand the computational and algorithmic mechanism of neural circuits. The theoretical analysis of the circuit only focuses on the stability analysis of the simple model. In contrast, the comp-neuro field has developed more comprehensive theoretical analyses on more complex recurrent networks that include both recurr
* Unified framework: The paper proposes a simple dynamical system that reduces to classical divisive normalization when β=0 and generalizes known recurrent normalization models for β=1, giving a nice mathematical link between normalization and attractor dynamics. The steady‑state derivation and identification of a transcritical bifurcation when β crosses η are clearly explained, and the continuous attractor analysis is analytically grounded. * Clarity of writing and figures: The model and its dy
* Even when if goal is to illustrate a concept rather than optimize performance, you need to provide some justification or exploration of parameter choices because it speaks to the robustness and generality of the proposed mechanism. In your paper, the key results hinge on a few manually chosen values (for example, β = 2 and η = 1 with τ = 50 ms) in both tasks. Without showing how the system behaves when these parameters vary, readers cannot tell whether the ability to maintain normalized repres
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNeural Networks and Applications · Advanced Memory and Neural Computing · Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design
