Working memory (WM) is essential for almost every cognitive task. The neural and synaptic mechanisms supporting the rapid encoding and maintenance of memories in diverse tasks are the subject of an ongoing debate. The traditional view of WM as stationary persistent firing of selective neuronal populations has given room to newer ideas regarding mechanisms that support a more dynamic maintenance of multiple items. Various computational WM models based on different biologically plausible plasticity mechanisms have been proposed. We show that these proposed short-term plasticity mechanisms may not necessarily be competing explanations but instead yield interesting interactions that broaden the functional range of models on a wide set of WM task motifs and simultaneously enhance the biological plausibility of spiking neural network models, in particular of the underlying synaptic plasticity. Although reductionist models (WM function explained by one particular mechanism) are theoretically appealing and have increased our understanding of specific mechanisms, they are narrow explanations. In this study, we evaluate the interactions between three commonly proposed classes of plasticity, namely, intrinsic excitability, synaptic facilitation/augmentation, and Hebbian plasticity. We systematically test combinations of mechanisms in a spiking neural network model on a broad suite of tasks or functional motifs deemed principally important for WM operation, such as one-shot encoding, free and cued recall, and multi-item delay maintenance and updating. Our analysis of the operational task performance indicates that a composite model is superior to more reductionist variants. Importantly, we attribute the observable differences to the principle nature of specific types of plasticity.
Fiebig et al. (Fri,) studied this question.