A METHOD OF PROCESSING DATA FLOWS IN A NEURAL NETWORK, AND A NEURAL NETWORK

Abstract: A neural network has an external sensor (2) to receive a parameter representation from the environment. The parameter representation is weighted and fed to the input of a master node (1), whose output transfers the parameter representation in an additionally weighted form to the input of an external effector (5). The output from the external effector is fed back to the input of the external sensor after influence on the environment. Furthermore, the parameter representation is fed back directly from the sensor of the master node, and then the sum of the parameter representations fed back is formed. This results in quick and very complex learning of the neural network which, after learning, can perform tasks without using feedback signals which are influenced by the environment. Thus, the invention provides a neural network where analogies may be drawn to the human consciousness.

Description: A method of processing data flows in a neutral network, and a neural network The invention relates to a method of processing data flows in a neural network, comprising the steps of: a) receiving a parameter representation from the environment in a plurality of input neurons b) transferring a weighted parameter representation from the output of the input neurons to the input of an internal layer of neurons c) transferring a weighted parameter representation from the output of the internal layer to the input of a plurality of output neurons, and simultaneously transferring a weighted parameter representation from the output of the internal layer to the input of a plurality of input neurons d) feeding back a weighted parameter representation from the output of the output neurons after influ¬ ence on the environment to the input of a plurality of input neurons. The invention moreover relates to a neural network which has an internal sensor having a plurality of input neu¬ rons to receive a parameter representation from the envi- ronment, wherein the output of the external sensor is connected to an internal layer having a plurality of neu¬ rons, wherein the output of the internal layer is con¬ nected to the input of an external effector having a plu¬ rality of output neurons, and wherein a parameter repre- sentation of the influence of the output neurons on the environment is fed back to the input of a plurality of a input neurons. Such a method and a neural network consisting of three types of neurons have previously been described in e.g. EP 0 529 682 A2, WO 95 24 684 Al. These known neural networks are based on the classic un¬ derstanding of the concept of consciousness, more particularly that consciousness and the associated muscles are affected by input from the five different hu¬ man senses, i.e. taste, smell, vision, touch and hearing. The output may be a reflex, with direct coupling from in¬ put to output. The present invention is based on another concept of con¬ sciousness, distinguishing between two forms of sensory input. These are called afferent signals and reafferent signals. The afferent signals are not caused by oneself. For example, the sound of an explosion will be an affer¬ ent signal since the sound reaches us without our doing anything. The reafferent signals are caused by oneself. For example, the sense of touch is an example of a reafferent signal. Thus, one receives a signal e.g. through the fin¬ gers because of one's muscular movements. In other words, the world is explored through reafferent signals. Consciousness is thus to be perceived as an interaction between brain, body and environment realized via the mo¬ tor mechanism. Consequently, there are to types of basic cognitive processes, viz. thought and movement, both of which are subjected to the same controlling unit, a so- called master node. A more thorough account of the above-mentioned theories can be found in the inventor's article entitled "On the unity of conscious experience", published by the Techni¬ cal University of Denmark, Institute of Physics, Building 307, DK-2800 Lyngby, which was not made available to the public at the filing date of the present application. Based on the above-mentioned theories, the object of the invention is to provide a method and a technical neural network which operate according to the principles of the master node theory, as mentioned above. The object of the invention is achieved in that the pa¬ rameter representation from the output of the internal layer of neurons, which is a master node, is corrected by the parameter representation from the result of the in¬ fluence of the output neurons on the environment. As a result, in the processing of data flows in the neu- ral network an artificial consciousness is simulated be¬ cause of an indirect coupling of the output neuron pa¬ rameter representation to the master node. As stated in claim 2, the method is expedient in that the correction is performed by an addition. This provides an extremely suitable way of correcting the parameter representation, as this my expediently take place vectorially. When the method is performed as stated in claim 3, only the parameter representation from the internal layer is fed back in the processing of signals in the neural net¬ work after learning. As a result, the neural network will now operate accord¬ ing to its simulated consciousness and will thus not be dependent on influence on the environment. As mentioned, the invention also relates to a neural net¬ work which is characterized in that the parameter repre¬ sentation from the output of the internal layer, which is a master node, is corrected by the parameter representa¬ tion from the result of the influence of the output neu- rons on the environment. This provides a technical neural network which has a built-in simulated consciousness. Expedient embodiments of the invention are defined in claims 5-7. The essential parts in connection with the invention are thus a) generation of an output to the environment, b) the internal workings in the neural network, including status evaluations, and c) detection of the input from the environment. The environment of the network is here understood to be all those physical objects and attributes of the immedi- ate or remote surroundings of the neural network which can be detected by any or all of the detectors of the neural network, and all those physical objects and at¬ tributes of the immediate and remote environment of the neural network which can be influenced by any or all of the outputs of the neural network. In a computer simulation of consciousness, the environ¬ ment mentioned above will be a simulated environment, and the objects and attributes will be simulated objects and attributes. In a computer simulation of consciousness, the above-mentioned detection device of the neural net ¬ work will be a simulated detection device. In a computer simulation of consciousness, the above-mentioned outputs of the neural network will be simulated outputs. The out ¬ puts include all physical processes whereby physical ob- jects and attributes of the immediate or remote environ ¬ ment of the neural network or the computer can be influ¬ enced. These processes include all mechanical, sound/audio, thermal, electrical, magnetic, electromag¬ netic (including radiation in the entire electromagnetic spectrum) electrochemical, chemical, biochemical, bio¬ logical (including molecular biological), optical, nu¬ clear and sub-atomic particle processes, said processes acting individually or in any or all possible combina¬ tions. The detection devices, the internal working and the status evaluation referred to above include the same processes as are mentioned in the description of the out¬ put. Further, the status evaluator are monitors which, at any given time, evaluate the degree to which the needs and aims of the neural network or the computer are not real¬ ized or satisfied, as well as evaluate whether the degree of danger to the neural network can or cannot be avoided, the word danger being here taken to mean the same as the processes mentioned before. The aims of the neural network are all the external things which are supplied to the neural network and are related to its functioning, said neural network being de- signed to accomplish tasks on its own behalf or on behalf of a person or optionally other computers. The needs of the neural network are all these things which are con¬ tained within or associated with the neural network itself. As previously mentioned, the design of the artificial consciousness of the neural network is based on creating an efference copy and setting up an appropriate interplay between the efference copy and the reafference input, and evaluating the consequences for the interplay of the neu¬ ral network. The provision of an efference copy and the setting up of an appropriate interplay between the effer¬ ence copy and the reafference input together with the mechanism for the evaluation of the results of this in¬ terplay, and its significance for the aims and needs of the neural network including avoidance of danger, are es¬ sential aspects of the invention. Thus, the invention provides an evaluation mechanism which will essentially give the neural network some properties which are compa¬ rable or equivalent to human feelings and emotions. Said network of the invention may be used in numerous connections. Examples include: conscious circuits in general games and videos - interactive television games based on simulated con¬ sciousness software/hardware military applications - educational programs simulation of personal friendship translation programs - security equipment industrial control cognitive processes. The invention will now be explained more fully below with reference to an embodiment shown in the drawing, in which fig. 1 shows an explanatory diagram of how the neurons are designed, fig. 2 shows a block diagram for the implementation of a neural network of the invention, while figs. 3-8 show various working situations for the block diagram of fig. 2. As appears from fig. 1, neurons consist of three groups, viz. input neurons, master node neurons and output neu- rons. The input neurons may e.g. select signals from an apparatus (designated afference input in fig. 1) . Fur¬ ther, the input neurons can receive signals from the re¬ sponse from an apparatus whose signals have been proc¬ essed in the neural network (designated reafference input in the drawing) . Finally, the input neurons can directly receive signals fed back from the master node neurons (designated efference copy in the drawing) . The neuron network has a design that allows all the neu- rons to receive signals either from other neurons or di- rectly from the environment via an apparatus or from both such sources. A mathematical model will be set-up below to illustrate how the fundamental signal transfer between the neurons takes place. In fig. 1, the vector for the input neurons is designated by Vi, while the connections may be called a matrix, which, as regards the input neurons, consists of two ma¬ trices Eoi and S M ι . The matrix E 0 ι illustrates the reaffer¬ ence route which corresponds to a weighted parameter rep¬ resentation of the vector of the output neurons after in¬ fluence on the environment. Correspondingly, the matrix S MI indicates weighted data representations as a result of the value of the vector V M from the master node. The weight parameter representations of the master node neu¬ rons consist of the matrix Sm which receives the vector signal V τ as the input signal, and emits, on its output, the vector signal V M to weighted representations S n o in the matrix associated with the output neurons. In the example, it is assumed that there are 14 input neurons, 6 master node neurons and 10 output neurons. (The drawing, however, shows 15 input neurons and 5 mas¬ ter node neurons) . In the example, the individual elements of the matrix S M0 are given initial values which are distributed uniformly in the interval 0.0 to 1.0. This represents the fact that the system has already developed links between the master node and the output. In contrast, Sm and S M[ are all of the same value, viz. 0.5. This initial situation there¬ fore corresponds to the case in which nothing has been learned about the environment. Finally, the matrix E : ι represents elements which are not the same, in order to illustrate the situation in which the environment con¬ tains information. The first illustration of the functions of the network will show the important case where the network explores its environment. The initial activity is seen in the mas ¬ ter node, it having received activation from the internal activating system. For a given activity pattern expressed by the vector V M in the master node, the resulting activ- ity pattern in the output will be given by Vo = V„*S„o, ( 1 ) where the symbol * indicates multiplication. The master node also sends activities to the input side, but in this case it is a second sort of activity which reaches the receiving unit, viz. that which comes from the environment, in the form of an reafference input. The net activity arriving at the input on the master node is a consequence of the activity in the master node, and thus given by Vτ = V M ÷S„ι + OI Finally, the input neurons will send signals to the mas¬ ter node, the activity thereby reaching the output on the master node being given by In the specific implementation described below, the neu¬ rons have learned about their environment by changing the sizes of the elements in the Sm and S It! synaptic connec- tion matrices. The rule for these changes in synaptic ef¬ ficiencies (also commonly known as synaptic weights) is that any synapse joining two neurons that are simultane¬ ously both active will have its efficacy increased, whereas synapses joining a pair of neurons in which only one of these is active will have its efficacy slightly decreased. These two cases are governed by the equations ΔS IM (i,j) = ε* (1-Sτn) (i, j)) (4) and ΔS IM (i,j) = 0.5*ε* (S ι (i,j In these equations, the symbol Δ indicates the amount of change in the efficacy of the synaptic connection between the input neuron number I and the master node neuron num¬ ber J. The quantity ε expresses the degree of learning under a given set of circumstances, and in the present example is assigned the value 0.01. The correction factor 0.5 which appears in equation (5) is necessary because there is twice as great a probability of a mismatch be¬ tween neuronal activities (i.e. both +- and -+) as there is of a match (i.e. ++) . In this example the network functions with the following initial matrices having the following elements, all those having a value different from 0 having been determined by a random number generator. Input to master (6 groups of 14) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 °M0 Master to output (10 groups of 6) 0.30 0.29 0.54 0.67 0.68 0.21 0.46 0.50 0.32 0.05 0.35 0.20 0.26 0.33 0.32 0.09 0.98 0.18 0.67 0.00 0.37 0.17 0.49 0.88 0.18 0.69 0.97 0.11 0.76 0.96 0.60 0.13 0.67 0.87 0.06 0.94 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.58 0.59 0.71 0.19 0.86 0.31 0.61 0.24 0.18 0.03 0.08 0.55 0.77 0.64 0.57 0.80 0.81 0.43 0.10 0.96 0.48 Master to input (14 groups of 6) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Master to input (14 groups of 6) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Output to output (14 groups of 10] 0. ,16 0.12 0.87 0.65 0.55 0.96 0.96 0.69 0.88 0.02 0. .37 0.20 0.02 0.99 0.87 0.82 0.05 0.33 0.23 0.12 0. .29 0.45 0.57 0.23 0.01 0.71 0.48 0.41 0.05 0.02 0. .69 0.94 0.90 0.77 0.40 0.28 0.19 0.21 0.26 0.95 0. .90 0.66 0.98 0.52 0.47 0.07 0.98 0.73 0.41 0.19 0. .91 0.05 0.12 0.61 0.18 0.51 0.18 0.53 0.67 0.74 0. .65 0.08 0.98 0.68 0.28 0.27 0.70 0.26 0.13 0.71 0. .66 0.31 0.38 0.89 0.96 0.89 0.15 0.89 0.65 0.47 0. .12 0.36 1.00 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.95 0.82 0.47 0.79 0. .27 0.41 0.63 0.77 0.79 0.89 0.84 0.24 0.29 0.41 0. .41 0.25 0.79 0.48 0.68 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.70 0.70 0. .43 0.92 0.33 0.14 0.61 0.45 0.62 0.96 0.95 0.64 0. .65 0.90 0.64 0.58 0.48 0.36 0.51 0.34 0.63 0.12 0. .17 0.63 0.69 0.00 0.21 0.83 0.72 0.98 0.92 0.13 In order to permit the neural network to learn about its environment, every possible activity combination in the master node was generated in turn, for situations in which just half (i.e. three) of the six neurons were ac- tive at any instant. There are 20 different ways in which three neurons out of a total of six can be active: 111000, 110100, 110010, and so on until 000111. These different activity patterns in the master node generate the activity pattern in the output unit, according to equation (1) above. But because there are many more pos¬ sible activity patterns in a set of ten neurons than there are in a set of six, it is clear that not all pos ¬ sible output patterns will be generated by the above-men¬ tioned master node activity. As discussed previously, the activity pattern generated in the input unit will be a consequence both of direct activation via the efference copy route and of indirect activation via the reafference route (see equation (2) above) . Moreover, since there are fourteen input neurons. the possible variety of input patterns is even greater than it is for the output on the master node unit. All possible patterns will therefore not be observed. In the following, activation of all possible master node activa- tion sequences, together with the resulting activity pat¬ terns in the other units, will be listed. Each group of three rows represents the sequence V M , V 0 and V τ . One sees that there are few repeats in the V τ patterns, as would be expected statistically, while if there was a larger number of neurons in each unit, such redundancy would rapidly diminish. In general, the simulated unit dis¬ criminates quite well between the various features from the environment. 111000 0100110101 01010001011101 110100 1000011101 10001101100101 110010 0110101001 10 00011010111100 110001 0001111001 11010011011000 15 101100 1000011011 10000101011101 20 101010 1011100001 00011111011000 101001 25 0001111001 11010011011000 011100 1000110110 30 11000101001101 011010 1010100101 00011011101100 35 011001 0000111101 10000001111101 100110 1000011011 10000101011101 100101 0001011011 10 10000101011101 100011 0001111001 11010011011000 15 010110 1000101101 00001011111100 20 010101 0000111110 10001001011101 010011 25 0011101001 10011011011000 001110 1000111010 30 10001001011101 001101 0001111010 11000001011101 35 001011 0001110011 11000101011100 000111 1000111010 10001001011101 The overall network was now permitted to learn, according to equation (4) and equation (5) above, and the resulting changes to the elements in the S IM and Sm are shown in the following tables. Input to master (6 groups of 14) 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.53 0.48 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.47 0.52 0.49 0.48 0.50 0.47 0.51 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.49 0.52 0.50 0.51 0.48 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.47 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.48 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.49 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.51 3.50 0.49 0.49 °MI Master to input (14 groups of 6) 0.51 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.50 0.48 0.51 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.52 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.49 0.50 0.50 Master to input (14 groups of 6) 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.48 0.47 0.50 0.49 0.49 The other matrices naturally remain unchanged. In order to demonstrate how the trained network would now response to exafference, which means arrival at the input neurons of the signals which have not been provoked by the neural network's own probing of the environment, the following steps may be taken. The net reafferent signals arriving at each of the 14 input neurons, for a given activity pattern in the master node, were calculated and stored. For the sake of illustration, the master node activity pattern was taken to be the first of the 20 patterns dis ¬ cussed previously, viz. 111000 The 14 input signals which this master node pattern gave rise to were as follows total sensory input to each input neuron 2.34 2.35 1.61 2.78 2.13 2.00 1.59 3.51 2.05 2.74 2.64 3.59 2.20 2.77 If the same 14 signals were now used as exafference in- put, i.e. input without prior activity in the master node, the activity then generated in the master node would (using equation (3) above) would be calculated to be 111000. This shows that the activity generated in the master node by purely afferent input signals would be precisely the same as if the master node activity had generated the equivalent reafference signals. In other words, the trained network will respond by internally simulating ac¬ tivity related to its own output. Finally, a few points should be discussed regarding the function of the simulated network. First, it should be noted that the efference copy signals transmitted from the master node to the input unit, during learning, will have an even influence on the 14 input neurons, because all elements in S MT are equal. If further learning takes place thereafter, this uniformity will not strictly hold. However, it must be kept in mind that the network used here for illustration is very small, and the activity level is extremely high (i.e. half of all the neurons are active in any given pattern) . In practice, the network will be much larger, and the fraction of activity neurons in any given pattern will be considerably less. The ap¬ proximate uniformity of the efference copy signals would thereby be maintained. Second, m this simple illustration, the synaptic matri¬ ces S M : and S IM are symmetrical. This is the case because the input and the master node unit are simple (vectorial) sets of neurons. If, instead, either or both of these units were composite, i.e. composed of many different distinct and independent sets of neurons, this reciprocal symmetry would no longer be observed. Fig. 2 shows a block diagram which may be used in the im¬ plementation of the invention. As will be seen, the cir¬ cuit consists of a master node 1 which is connected to an external sensor 2, an internal activator 3, an external effector 5, a selector and activator 4, as well as, via the selector and activator 4, connected to an internal state sensor 6, which is additionally connected to the internal activator 3. The manner in which this circuit can operate is shown in figs. 3-8. where fig. 3 illustrates that an internal sen ¬ sor in the neural network responds to an internally motivated exploration of the environment. In this embodi¬ ment, the internal state sensor detects that the appara¬ tus has developed aims or needs which initiate a series of events that lead to activation of the external effec ¬ tor. This enables the circuit to probe the environment, and the interplay between the efference copy signals and the reafferent signals produces consciousness. The conse¬ quences of the external probing of the circuit for the achievement of its aims, for the fulfilment of its needs, and for the avoidance of danger are fed back to the in¬ ternal sensor unit. Memories of these events are simulta ¬ neously stored in the synapses associated with connec¬ tions between the external sensor and the internal state sensor unit. These are used for predicting the probable consequences of future input signals. Fig. 4 shows a mode of operation with internally moti¬ vated perception of the input. In this mode of operation, the internal state sensors have already activated the system when the input occurs, and this enables the system to perceive the input and selectively pay attention to it, even though there is no overt response from the in¬ put. Fig. 5 shows the mode of operation for an internally mo¬ tivated response from the input. This mode is similar to the mode in fig. 4, but in this case the level of motiva¬ tion is sufficiently high that an actual response is elicited. Fig. 6 shows a mode where the circuit operates with pas¬ sive reflex response. In the absence of internal motiva¬ tion, the arrival of an input signal may lead to a reflex response, even though the input is not actively attentive to this. Fig. 7 shows a mode of internally motivated internal simulation of response (thought) . This mode is essen¬ tially the opposite of the mode in fig. 6. The internal state sensor provokes the master node into an internal simulation of the outcome of a particular course of ac¬ tions by inducing the master note to set up circulating signals which pass through the loop jointly formed by the efference copy and the afference routes. This also gener- ates action in the route from the remembered consequence signals, and this can lead to adjustments in the synaptic contacts involved in the last-mentioned route. The system thus simulates actions and evaluates their consequences, without doing anything about them. This is thinking. (It is possible that this particular mode of functioning has aspects in common with the process of dreaming in the hu¬ man) . Finally, fig. 8 shows a mode of operation with externally driven arousal and response. In this final example, the machine is initially not motivated, but the expected con¬ sequences of the input provoke the system into action, and the circuit will then function in a manner analogous to that seen in fig. 5, with all the feedback routes ac- tive, and with selective attention being paid to the in ¬ put.

Claims: P a t e n t C l a i m s 1. A method of processing data flows in a neural net- work, comprising the steps of: a) receiving a parameter representation from the envi¬ ronment in a plurality of input neurons b) transferring a weighted parameter representation from the output of the input neurons to the input ofan internal layer of neurons c) transferring a weighted parameter representation from the output of the internal layer to the input of a plurality of output neurons, and simultaneously transferring a parameter representation from the output of the internal layer to the input in a plu¬ rality of input neurons d) feeding back a weighted parameter representation from the output of the output neurons after influ¬ ence on the environment to the input of a plurality of input neurons, c h a r a c t e r i z e d in that e) the parameter representation from the output from the internal layer of neurons, which is a master node, is corrected with the parameter representation from the result of the influence of the output neu- rons on the environment. 2. A method according to claim 1, c h a r a c t e r ¬ i z e d in that the correction is performed by an addi¬ tion. 3. A method according to claim 1 or 2, c h a r a c - t e r i z e d in that only the parameter representation from the internal layer is fed back in the processing of signals in the neural network after learning. 4. A neural network including an external sensor having a plurality of input neurons to receive a parameter rep¬ resentation from the environment, wherein the output of the external sensor is connected to an internal layer having a plurality of neurons, wherein the output of the internal layer is connected to the input of an external effector having a plurality of output neurons, and wherein a parameter representation of the influence of the output neurons on the environment is fed back to the input of a plurality of input neurons, c h a r a c t e r i z e d in that the parameter representation from the output of the internal layer, which is a master node, is corrected by the parameter representation from the result of the influence of the output neurons on the environ¬ ment. 5. A neural network according to claim 4, c h a r a c ¬ t e r i z e d in that the correction consists in an ad¬ dition. 6. A neural network according to claim 4 or 5, c h a r ¬ a c t e r i z e d in that the master node additionally has an input to receive output signals from an internal activator whose input is connected to the outputs from a sensor unit which receives signals representing devia- tions from the optimum states of the neural network and signals from the output of the external sensor. 7. A neural network according to claims 4-6, c h a r ¬ a c t e r i z e d in that the internal activator has an output which is connected to the input of a selector and activator which has an output connected to the master node.

Inventors: COTTERILL RODNEY MICHAEL JOHN, COTTERILL, RODNEY, MICHAEL, JOHN
Applicants: COTTERILL RODNEY MICHAEL JOHN, COTTERILL, RODNEY, MICHAEL, JOHN
Application year: 1997
Main classification: G06F15
IPC codes: G06F15, G06N3