Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 131 references

Dynamical principles of habituation across substrates and scales

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Any habituating system with nonnegative, bounded output must be nonlinear, and a single fading-memory state with a static nonlinear readout is enough to capture the core hallmarks.

desk verdict Useful synthesis, but the headline 'nonlinearity is necessary' needs the admissible input set pinned down before it is a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00249 v1 pith:547VXNCW submitted 2026-07-31 eess.SY cs.SYnlin.AOq-bio.NC

Matthew Smart , Stanislav Y. Shvartsman , Martin Mönnigmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SYnlin.AOq-bio.NC
keywords habituationbehavioralconstraintsfadingmemorynonlinearsystemsWienermodeltransientresponsestate-spacemodelsadaptationvs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that habituation—the progressive lessening of a response to repeated stimulation and its recovery when stimulation stops—is not a collection of substrate-specific tricks but a constraint on dynamical structure. Formalizing the classical hallmarks of habituation as inequalities on peak responses, the authors show that no linear time-invariant system with nonnegative output can habituate; nonlinearity is therefore necessary, not a modeling choice. They then construct the minimal structure that satisfies the core hallmarks: one linear fading-memory state (a leaky integrator of recent input) followed by a static nonlinearity that attenuates the response when the memory is large. This single motif captures the defining features of habituation, and simple extensions—two units in series, a static input nonlinearity—add frequency- and intensity-sensitivity. The review positions this motif as the shared 'normal form' underlying habituating systems from ciliates to circuits to machine-learning sequence models.

What carries the argument

The key object is the Wiener model: linear fading-memory dynamics (a first-order leaky integrator x_dot = beta*u - alpha*x, so x is a discounted memory of recent input) followed by a static, monotone-decreasing nonlinear output map y = u*sigma(x) with sigma(0)=1. The memory state x accumulates during bursts of stimulation, pushing sigma(x) down and attenuating the response; when stimulation stops, x decays and the system recovers. This block structure is the minimal motif the review constructs from the hallmarks, and it is the common thread connecting RC-diode circuits, molecular memory models, and reservoir or state-space computing. A classical theorem on fading memory guarantees that such

What would settle it

Take any linear time-invariant system with a nonnegative impulse response (e.g., an RC low-pass filter measuring capacitor voltage), drive it with a periodic positive pulse train, and record the peak output in each period followed by the peak after a stimulus-free pause. If the peaks strictly decrease over the first several periods and then recover toward baseline, the paper's central impossibility claim is wrong; the theorem predicts the peaks must instead converge monotonically upward to steady state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that any system that habituates with nonnegative, bounded output must be nonlinear, because linear time-invariant systems obey superposition and time invariance, which forbid the history-dependent attenuation that defines habituation. Conversely, habituation is not computationally demanding: a single leaky-integrator state that remembers recent stimulation, feeding a static nonlinear readout that suppresses output when the memory is full, satisfies the core hallmarks H1 (progressive decrement) and H2 (spontaneous recovery), along with H3 and frequency sensitivity H4(a). The authors derive this Wiener-type motif step-by-step from the hallmarks rather than assuming

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the chosen mathematical encoding of the verbal hallmarks—in particular, H1 is formalized as 'there exists some periodic stimulus whose peak responses decrease monotonically,' and H0 requires outputs to be nonnegative and bounded; a different, stricter formalization could defeat both the impossibility result and the claimed minimality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any habituating system with nonnegative, bounded output must be nonlinear: linear time-invariant dynamics with a linear readout cannot produce monotone attenuation and recovery.
  • A single fading-memory state with a static nonlinear readout is sufficient for the core hallmarks H1, H2, H3, and H4(a); no more structural complexity is needed at the core.
  • Frequency-dependent recovery (H4b) requires at least two timescales, realized by connecting two Wiener units in series, and intensity sensitivity (H5) requires a static input nonlinearity.
  • Adaptation and habituation are logically independent: each can occur without the other, and both require nonlinearity once outputs are required to stay nonnegative.
  • Across biological, physical, and algorithmic systems, the recurring architectural principle is a fading memory of recent input coupled to a nonlinear readout.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: because the impossibility argument uses only superposition, time invariance, and nonnegativity, it should extend to any periodic input family, not just the pulse trains used in the paper; checking monotone attenuation on a broader class of inputs would probe the robustness of the structural conclusion.
  • Boundary of the claim: the minimality result is tied to the 'there exists a stimulus' reading of H1; if one requires habituation for all stimulation frequencies, the single-unit motif may no longer be sufficient, and a stronger architecture—possibly involving an internal model of the stimulus—would be needed.
  • Design corollary for artificial sequence models: to obtain habituation-like filtering, keep the core recurrence linear and make the readout or decay rate input-dependent; this is the cheapest way to satisfy the behavioral constraints and could be tested directly in model ablations.
  • Empirical prediction: single-trial behavioral data from any habituating system should be describable by a one-dimensional hidden state with exponential forgetting; if two timescales are required, frequency-dependent recovery should be observed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review-style manuscript formalizes the classical hallmarks of habituation as behavioral constraints on input–output behavior, argues that linear time-invariant (LTI) systems are structurally incapable of habituation under a nonnegative-output assumption, and constructs minimal nonlinear motifs—linear fading-memory dynamics with static nonlinear readouts—that satisfy the core hallmarks. It then surveys realizations across biological systems, analog circuits, memristive materials, and machine-learning architectures, and discusses extensions for frequency and intensity sensitivity. The central claims are: nonlinearity is necessary for habituation with nonnegative output; a single fading-memory state with a nonlinear readout is sufficient for the core hallmarks H1/H2; and simple structural extensions (series composition, input nonlinearity) account for H4(b) and H5. The paper is written as an Annual Reviews-style synthesis, with the main formal results deferred to the authors' prior publications (refs. 1 and 2).

Significance. If the structural claims hold, the paper provides a principled, domain-independent answer to what dynamical ingredients habituation requires, and it usefully organizes a scattered literature across biology, physics, and machine learning. The behavioral-constraints framing is clear, the minimal Wiener motif is genuinely simple and mechanistically interpretable, and the survey is broad and current. The paper's core derivation is not a data-fitting exercise; the motif is constructed from specification, and no parameters are fitted in the main argument. The main structural theorem (LTI impossibility) is elegant but, as written, suffers from an ambiguity in the admissible input set that is load-bearing: under one natural reading (semi-infinite periodic pulse trains only), the theorem is false. The paper also leans heavily on the authors' own CDC/PNAS results for the formal propositions; for a review this is acceptable, but the self-contained argument needs to be precise about its domain.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. 2.1–2.2, Table 1] The admissible input set U is not fixed precisely. Section 2.1 defines stimuli as "non-negative periodic pulse trains of period T, amplitude A, and duty cycle d," while the proof sketch in Section 2.2 uses a finite pulse train. Under the semi-infinite-periodic reading, the claimed LTI barrier is false: the LTI system with impulse response h(t)=δ(t)−c1δ(t−T)−c2δ(t−2T), with c1,c2>0 and c1+c2<1, maps any semi-infinite T-periodic pulse train to a nonnegative output with peak sequence 1, 1−c1, 1−c1−c2, ..., so H0 and H1 are both satisfied. This counterexample fails only if U includes finite truncations of periodic trains (because the negative tail after the final pulse violates H0), or if H2 is appended to the definition of habituation so that withholding is an admissible operation. Since the central conclusion "nonlinearity is structurally necessary" depends entirely on this, the paper must
  2. [Sec. 2.2] Even accepting finite pulse trains as admissible, the proof sketch is not self-contained. It invokes superposition and time invariance but does not specify how H1 applies to the summed input ũ=u+u_shift, which is not necessarily an admissible periodic pulse train, nor exactly how the peak sequence of the summed system contradicts the superposition identity. Since the formal proposition is deferred to ref. 2, the review should at least state the precise proposition, including the class of inputs and the notion of habituation used, so that the reader can verify the argument without consulting the CDC paper.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.1, Fig. 5] The claim that a series connection of two Wiener units satisfies H4(b) (faster recovery under more frequent stimulation) is supported only by a verbal timescale argument and by the examples shown in Fig. 5(a,b). No formal sufficient condition is given (e.g., explicit timescale separation α1≫α2 with parameter bounds), and it is not stated whether H4(b) holds robustly or only for the plotted parameters. Since H4(b) is one of the advertised "structurally distinct extensions," the paper should either supply a proof or a precise parameter regime, or explicitly label the claim as a numerical demonstration.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.2, Fig. 5(e,f)] The intensity-sensitivity claim H5 is verified through the asymptotic ratio ρ=y[∞]/y[0], but the Table 1 criterion for H5 is an inequality on the normalized response sequence y1[k]≤y2[k] for all k. A phase diagram of the asymptotic ratio alone does not establish the full-sequence inequality. Please show the normalized peak sequences for representative A1<A2, or explicitly restrict the claim to the asymptotic regime and state that the full hallmark is not demonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1, H3] The index in the H3 criterion "y[K(L+L′)+k]<y[k]" is ambiguous; k is said to range over "some subsequent stimuli," but the bounds on k should be made explicit to be mathematically precise.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.2] The notation ρ=y[∞]/y[0] should be defined as the asymptotic peak-response ratio, since under periodic stimulation the system does not converge to a constant output and y[∞] is not a steady-state value.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Step 1] The phrase "time-varying receptivity" for σ(t)=e^{−αt}H(t) is slightly misleading because σ depends on absolute time rather than on stimulus history; the text immediately explains this, but rewording would improve clarity.
  4. [Sec. 5.1.2] The discussion of ideal memristors lacking spontaneous recovery is useful, but the claim that habituation "requires a leaky memory" would benefit from a precise pointer back to H2 and the definition of fading memory in Sec. 4.4.
  5. [Sec. 3.3] The statement that the minimal motif's steady-state attenuation "can be made small in appropriate limits" is vague; giving one explicit parameter limit (e.g., α→0 or β→∞) would make the point concrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: motif is synthesized from hallmarks; LTI barrier is cited/sketched. Reliance on authors' prior proofs is load-bearing but not a definitional circle.

full rationale

No step in the paper reduces its claimed derivation to its own inputs. The minimal motif (Sec. 4.1, Eqs. 3-5) is an explicit construction: y = u sigma(x), x-dot = beta u - alpha x, sigma = 1/(1+x^N), chosen so that the leaky-integrator memory x increases under pulse trains and decays during quiescence, forcing the output peak sequence to decrease and recover. That is synthesis from the H0/H1/H2 specification, not fitting; the paper even states the nonlinearity is not unique (“any function with sigma(0)=1 that is positive and monotone-decreasing...”). The LTI barrier (Sec. 2.2) is argued from superposition/time-invariance and the nonnegativity assumption H0, then attributed to the authors' own prior result (“see Smart et al. (2), Prop. 3.1”). This self-citation is load-bearing, but it is an external published theorem rather than an equation-level equivalence inside this paper; the review also gives a sketch of the argument. The paper itself flags the formalization's interpretive freedom: “the passage from verbal descriptions to mathematical criteria is lossy and may admit several interpretations” (Sec. 2.1). That is an honest caveat, not a hidden circularity. One non-circular correctness gap should be noted: the proof sketch uses a finite pulse train while Sec. 2.1 defines admissible stimuli as periodic pulse trains and H1 requires a periodic stimulus; if U contains only semi-infinite periodic trains, the barrier's proof domain shifts. This affects soundness, not circularity. Similarly, the “lowest-dimensional” claim is asserted rather than proved. These are limitations, not reductions of the output to the input.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The 'receptivity' σ(t) is a mathematical rewriting of the output map, not an independent mechanistic entity. The free parameters are simulation/illustration constants chosen by hand; the axioms include explicit domain restrictions and the paper-specific formalization of the hallmarks.

free parameters (6)
  • memory decay rate α
    Chosen by hand for simulations in Figs. 4-5; sets recovery timescale in Eq. 4; the motif works over a range, but no data fit is performed.
  • input gain β
    Scales the memory state in Eq. 4; qualitative behavior is robust to its value, but no fitted value or formal range is given.
  • readout exponent N
    Exponent in σ(x)=1/(1+x^N), Eq. 5; the examples use N≥1 and it controls sharpness of attenuation.
  • amplitude gate parameters h(u)=2u/(1+u^N)
    Ad hoc input nonlinearity in Sec. 4.2.2 introduced to implement intensity sensitivity H5; no data support or unique choice.
  • AIC rate constants k1..k5
    Set to k1=k2=k4=k5=2 and k3=0.5 or 16 in Fig. 3d to demonstrate adaptation without habituation; illustrative, not fitted.
  • oscillator stiffness and damping (k, γ)
    Chosen in Fig. 3c to illustrate overdamped vs. underdamped separation of adaptation and habituation; illustrative parameters.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Standing Assumption 1: SISO, time-invariant state-space systems x˙=f(x,u), y=g(x,u)
    Sec. 2 restricts all conclusions to SISO time-invariant state-space systems; multivariable hallmarks H7-H9 are largely outside scope.
  • domain assumption Standing Assumption 2: the system relaxes to a unique steady state in the absence of input
    Sec. 2; needed for a well-defined input-output operator H and for fading memory. The authors note it is violated by multistability and singular limits.
  • domain assumption H0: output nonnegative and bounded for all admissible inputs
    Sec. 2.1; explicitly flagged as a standing physical assumption, and it underpins the LTI impossibility proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Formalization of hallmarks H1-H10 into pulse-peak response inequalities (Table 1)
    Sec. 2.1; the authors acknowledge the translation from verbal descriptions is lossy and admits alternative interpretations; all structural conclusions depend on this choice.
  • standard math Superposition and time-invariance for LTI systems
    Sec. 2.2; used in the LTI barrier argument to construct shifted and summed pulse trains.
  • standard math Boyd-Chua fading-memory approximation theorem
    Sec. 4.4/sidebar; used to connect the Wiener motif to Volterra series and state-space realizations.
  • standard math Positive LTI facts: nonnegative impulse response and zero DC gain imply the trivial zero system
    Sec. 3.2; used to show no positive LTI system achieves perfect adaptation; cited to Farina and Rinaldi (ref. 55).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical principles of habituation across substrates and scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/547VXNCW

@misc{pith2026260800249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical principles of habituation across substrates and scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/547VXNCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00249}
}
read the original abstract

Habituation is a basic form of learning in which a system's response to repeated stimulation progressively diminishes but eventually recovers when the stimulus is withheld. Long studied in animals, it has increasingly been observed in unicellular organisms and non-living devices such as electronic circuits and neuromorphic materials, suggesting underlying dynamical principles that recur across domains. This review asks what those principles are: given qualitative constraints imposed by habituation on a system's response, what is the minimal dynamical structure that satisfies them? We formalize the classical hallmarks of habituation as behavioral constraints on input--output behavior, show that linear time-invariant systems are structurally incompatible with these constraints, and construct nonlinear motifs---linear fading-memory dynamics composed with static nonlinearities---that exhibit the hallmarks across diverse settings. We relate these motifs to models of specific biological systems and to physical and algorithmic realizations, from analog circuits to transient computation in machine learning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Smart M, Shvartsman SY, M¨ onnigmann M. 2024. Minimal motifs for habituating systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121(41):e2409330121

    2024

  2. [2]

    2024.A minimal dynamical system and analog circuit for non-associative learning

    Smart M, Shvartsman SY, M¨ onnigmann M. 2024.A minimal dynamical system and analog circuit for non-associative learning. In2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 577–582. Milan, Italy: IEEE

    2024

  3. [3]

    Thompson RF. 2009. Habituation: A history.Neurobiology of learning and memory92(2):127– 134

    2009

  4. [4]

    Jennings HS. 1902. Studies on reactions to stimuli in unicellular organisms. ix.—on the be- havior of fixed infusoria (Stentor and Vorticella), with special reference to the modifiability of protozoan reactions.American Journal of Physiology8(1):23–60

    1902

  5. [5]

    1906.Behavior of the lower organisms

    Jennings HS. 1906.Behavior of the lower organisms. Columbia University Press

    1906

  6. [6]

    Davis M. 1970. Effects of interstimulus interval length and variability on startle-response habituation in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology72(2):177–192

    1970

  7. [7]

    Groves PM, Thompson RF. 1970. Habituation: a dual-process theory.Psychological Review 77(5):419–450

    1970

  8. [8]

    Randlett O, Haesemeyer M, Forkin G, Shoenhard H, Schier AF, et al. 2019. Distributed plasticity drives visual habituation learning in larval zebrafish.Current Biology29(8):1337– 1345

    2019

Show all 131 references
  1. [9]

    Carew TJ, Pinsker HM, Kandel ER. 1972. Long-term habituation of a defensive withdrawal reflex in Aplysia.Science175(4020):451–454

    1972

  2. [10]

    1976.Cellular Basis of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Neurobiology

    Kandel ER. 1976.Cellular Basis of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Neurobiology. W. H. Freeman

    1976

  3. [11]

    Rankin CH, Beck CD, Chiba CM. 1990. Caenorhabditis elegans: a new model system for the study of learning and memory.Behavioural brain research37(1):89–92

    1990

  4. [12]

    Engel JE, Wu CF. 2009. Neurogenetic approaches to habituation and dishabituation in Drosophila.Neurobiology of Learning and Memory92(2):166–175

    2009

  5. [13]

    McFadden PN, Koshland DE. 1990. Habituation in the single cell: Diminished secretion of norepinephrine with repetitive depolarization of PC12 cells.Proceedings of the National www.annualreviews.org • Dynamical principles of habituation 25 Academy of Sciences of the United Stat...

    1990

  6. [14]

    Cheever L, Koshland DE. 1994. Habituation of neurosecretory responses to extracellular ATP in PC12 cells.Journal of Neuroscience14(8):4831–4838

    1994

  7. [15]

    Gagliano M, Renton M, Depczynski M, Mancuso S. 2014. Experience teaches plants to learn faster and forget slower in environments where it matters.Oecologia175(1):63–72

    2014

  8. [16]

    Ortega JK, Gamow RI. 1970. Phycomyces: habituation of the light growth response.Science 168(3937):1374–1375

    1970

  9. [17]

    Applewhite PB. 1975. Learning in bacteria, fungi, and plants.Invertebrate Learning3:179–186

    1975

  10. [18]

    Wood DC. 1969. Parametric studies of the response decrement produced by mechanical stimuli in the protozoan, Stentor coeruleus.Journal of neurobiology1(3):345–360

    1969

  11. [19]

    Eisenstein EM, Brunder DG, Blair HJ. 1982. Habituation and sensitization in an aneural cell: Some comparative and theoretical considerations.Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 6(2):183–194

    1982

  12. [20]

    Rajan D, Makushok T, Kalish A, Acuna L, Bonville A, et al. 2023. Single-cell analysis of habituation in Stentor coeruleus.Current Biology33(2):241–251

    2023

  13. [21]

    Boisseau RP, Vogel D, Dussutour A. 2016. Habituation in non-neural organisms: Evidence from slime moulds.Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences283(1829):20160446

    2016

  14. [22]

    Boussard A, Delescluse J, P´ erez-Escudero A, Dussutour A. 2019. Memory inception and preser- vation in slime moulds: The quest for a common mechanism.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences374(1774):20180368

    2019

  15. [23]

    Zhang Z, Mondal S, Mandal S, Allred JM, Aghamiri NA, et al. 2021. Neuromorphic learning with Mott insulator NiO.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(39):e2017239118

    2021

  16. [24]

    Wu Z, Lu J, Shi T, Zhao X, Zhang X, et al. 2020. A habituation sensory nervous system with memristors.Advanced Materials32(46):2004398

    2020

  17. [25]

    Gershman SJ, Balbi PE, Gallistel CR, Gunawardena J. 2021. Reconsidering the evidence for learning in single cells.eLife10:e61907

    2021

  18. [26]

    Gunawardena J. 2022. Learning outside the brain: Integrating cognitive science and systems biology.Proceedings of the IEEE110(5):590–612

    2022

  19. [27]

    Thompson RF, Spencer W A. 1966. Habituation: a model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior.Psychological Review73(1):16–43

    1966

  20. [28]

    Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ, Bhatnagar S, Clayton DF, et al. 2009. Habituation re- visited: An updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory92(2):135–138

    2009

  21. [29]

    Eckert L, Vidal-Saez MS, Zhao Z, Garcia-Ojalvo J, Martinez-Corral R, Gunawardena J

  22. [30]

    1948.Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine

    Wiener N. 1948.Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, MA: The Technology Press / Wiley

    1948

  23. [31]

    1956.An Introduction to Cybernetics

    Ashby WR. 1956.An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall

    1956

  24. [32]

    Blok LER, Boon M, van Reijmersdal B, H¨ offler KD, Fenckova M, Schenck A. 2022. Genetics, molecular control and clinical relevance of habituation learning.Neuroscience and Biobehav- ioral Reviews143:104883

    2022

  25. [33]

    Fenckova M, Blok LE, Asztalos L, Goodman DP, Cizek P, et al. 2019. Habituation learning is a widely affected mechanism in Drosophila models of intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorders.Biological psychiatry86(4):294–305

    2019

  26. [34]

    Poon CS, Young DL. 2006. Nonassociative learning as gated neural integrator and differentiator in stimulus-response pathways.Behavioral and Brain Functions2(1):29

    2006

  27. [35]

    1999.System Identification: Theory for the User

    Ljung L. 1999.System Identification: Theory for the User. Prentice Hall information and system sciences series. Prentice Hall PTR

    1999

  28. [36]

    Ljung L. 2010. Perspectives on system identification.Annual Reviews in Control34(1):1–12 26 Smart et al

    2010

  29. [37]

    Ferrell JE. 2016. Perfect and near-perfect adaptation in cell signaling.Cell Systems2(2):62–67

    2016

  30. [38]

    Tyson JJ, Chen KC, Novak B. 2003. Sniffers, buzzers, toggles and blinkers: dynamics of regulatory and signaling pathways in the cell.Current Opinion in Cell Biology15(2):221–231

    2003

  31. [39]

    Briat C, Gupta A, Khammash M. 2016. Antithetic integral feedback ensures robust perfect adaptation in noisy biomolecular networks.Cell Systems2(1):15–26

    2016

  32. [40]

    Brunton SL, Proctor JL, Kutz JN. 2016. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(15):3932–3937

    2016

  33. [41]

    Schmidt M, Lipson H. 2009. Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data.Science 324(5923):81–85

    2009

  34. [42]

    2002.Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurca- tions of Vector Fields, vol

    Guckenheimer J, Holmes P. 2002.Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurca- tions of Vector Fields, vol. 42 ofApplied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, 7th ed

    2002

  35. [43]

    1985.Singularities and Groups in Bifurcation Theory: Volume I, vol

    Golubitsky M, Schaeffer DG. 1985.Singularities and Groups in Bifurcation Theory: Volume I, vol. 51 ofApplied Mathematical Sciences. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag

    1985

  36. [44]

    1998.Introduction to mathematical systems theory

    Polderman JW, Willems JC. 1998.Introduction to mathematical systems theory. Texts in applied mathematics: 26. Springer New York, NY

    1998

  37. [45]

    Willems JC. 2007. The behavioral approach to open and interconnected systems.IEEE control systems magazine27(6):46–99

    2007

  38. [46]

    Sepulchre R, Drion G, Franci A. 2018. Excitable behaviors. InEmerging Applications of Con- trol and Systems Theory. Springer

    2018

  39. [47]

    Ribar L, Sepulchre R. 2021. Neuromorphic control: Designing multiscale mixed-feedback sys- tems.IEEE Control Systems Magazine41(6):34–63

    2021

  40. [48]

    Ma W, Trusina A, El-Samad H, Lim W A, Tang C. 2009. Defining network topologies that can achieve biochemical adaptation.Cell138(4):760–773

    2009

  41. [49]

    Yi TM, Huang Y, Simon MI, Doyle J. 2000. Robust perfect adaptation in bacterial chemo- taxis through integral feedback control.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(9):4649–4653

    2000

  42. [50]

    Tu Y. 2013. Quantitative modeling of bacterial chemotaxis: signal amplification and accurate adaptation.Annual Review of Biophysics42:337–359

    2013

  43. [51]

    Tu Y, Rappel WJ. 2018. Adaptation in living systems.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics9:183–205

    2018

  44. [52]

    Aoki SK, Lillacci G, Gupta A, Baumschlager A, Schweingruber D, Khammash M. 2019. A universal biomolecular integral feedback controller for robust perfect adaptation.Nature 570(7762):533–537

    2019

  45. [53]

    Francis BA, Wonham WM. 1976. The internal model principle of control theory.Automatica 12(5):457–465

    1976

  46. [54]

    Bin M, Huang J, Isidori A, Marconi L, Mischiati M, Sontag E. 2022. Internal models in con- trol, bioengineering, and neuroscience.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems5(1):55–79

    2022

  47. [55]

    2000.Positive Linear Systems: Theory and Applications

    Farina L, Rinaldi S. 2000.Positive Linear Systems: Theory and Applications. Pure and applied mathematics. New York: John Wiley & Sons

    2000

  48. [56]

    Boyd S, Chua LO, Desoer CA. 1984. Analytical foundations of Volterra series.IMA Journal of Mathematical Control and Information1(3):243–282

    1984

  49. [57]

    Maass W, Sontag ED. 2000. Neural systems as nonlinear filters.Neural Computation 12(8):1743–1772

    2000

  50. [58]

    Schoukens M, Tiels K. 2017. Identification of block-oriented nonlinear systems starting from linear approximations: A survey.Automatica85:272–292

    2017

  51. [59]

    Ramaswami M. 2014. Network plasticity in adaptive filtering and behavioral habituation. Neuron82(6):1216–1229

    2014

  52. [60]

    Shen Y, Dasgupta S, Navlakha S. 2020. Habituation as a neural algorithm for online odor discrimination.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(22):12402–12410 www.annualreviews.org • Dynamical principles of habituation 27

    2020

  53. [61]

    Gunawardena J. 2005. Multisite protein phosphorylation makes a good threshold but can be a poor switch.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences102(41):14617–14622

    2005

  54. [62]

    Staddon JE. 1993. On rate-sensitive habituation.Adaptive Behavior1(4):421–436

    1993

  55. [63]

    Staddon JE, Higa JJ. 1996. Multiple time scales in simple habituation.Psychological Review 103(4):720–733

    1996

  56. [64]

    2001.Adaptive Dynamics: The Theoretical Analysis of Behavior

    Staddon JE. 2001.Adaptive Dynamics: The Theoretical Analysis of Behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

    2001

  57. [65]

    Stanley JC. 1976. Computer simulation of a model of habituation.Nature261(5556):146–148

    1976

  58. [66]

    Wang D. 1993. A neural model of synaptic plasticity underlying short-term and long-term habituation.Adaptive Behavior2(2):111–129

    1993

  59. [67]

    Dragoi V. 2002. A feedforward model of suppressive and facilitatory habituation effects.Bio- logical cybernetics86(6):419–426

    2002

  60. [68]

    del Rosal E, Alonso L, Moreno R, V´ azquez M, Santacreu J. 2006. Simulation of habituation to simple and multiple stimuli.Behavioural Processes73(3):272–277

    2006

  61. [69]

    Tsodyks MV, Markram H. 1997. The neural code between neocortical pyramidal neurons depends on neurotransmitter release probability.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences94(2):719–723

    1997

  62. [70]

    Aljadeff J, Lansdell BJ, Fairhall AL, Kleinfeld D. 2016. Analysis of neuronal spike trains, deconstructed.Neuron91(2):221–259

    2016

  63. [71]

    Weber AI, Fairhall AL. 2019. The role of adaptation in neural coding.Current Opinion in Neurobiology58:135–140

    2019

  64. [72]

    1963.Perception and the Conditioned Reflex

    Sokolov E. 1963.Perception and the Conditioned Reflex. Pergamon Press book. Pergamon Press

    1963

  65. [73]

    1989.Self-organization and associative memory: 3rd edition

    Kohonen T. 1989.Self-organization and associative memory: 3rd edition. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag

    1989

  66. [74]

    Bourassa FXP, Fran¸ cois P, Reddy G, Vergassola M. 2026. Manifold learning for olfactory habituation to strongly fluctuating backgrounds.PRX Life4(1):013008

    2026

  67. [75]

    Pla-Mauri J, Sol´ e R. 2026. Engineering basal cognition: Minimal genetic circuits for habitua- tion, sensitization, and massed–spaced learning.ACS Synthetic Biology15(2):716–727

    2026

  68. [76]

    Bonzanni M, Rouleau N, Levin M, Kaplan DL. 2019. On the generalization of habituation: how discrete biological systems respond to repetitive stimuli: a novel model of habituation that is independent of any biological system.Bioessays41(7):1900028

    2019

  69. [77]

    Nicoletti G, Bruzzone M, Suweis S, Dal Maschio M, Busiello DM. 2025. Optimal information gain at the onset of habituation to repeated stimuli.eLife13:RP99767

    2025

  70. [78]

    Gershman SJ. 2024. Habituation as optimal filtering.iScience27(8):110523

    2024

  71. [79]

    Komatsu M, Yasui T, Ohkawa T, Budd C. 2025. Data-driven modeling of habituation with its frequency-dependent hallmark based on Fourier neural operator.Nonlinear Theory and Its Applications, IEICE16(3):461–479

    2025

  72. [80]

    Boyd S, Chua LO. 1985. Fading memory and the problem of approximating nonlinear operators with Volterra series.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and SystemsCAS-32(11):1150–1161

    1985

  73. [81]

    Koch D, Nandan A, Ramesan G, Koseska A. 2024. Biological computations: limitations of attractor-based formalisms and the need for transients.Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications720:150069

    2024

  74. [82]

    Rivi` ere M, Meroz Y. 2023. Plants sum and subtract stimuli over different timescales.Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences120(42):e2306655120

    2023

  75. [83]

    1980.The Volterra and Wiener Theories of Nonlinear Systems

    Schetzen M. 1980.The Volterra and Wiener Theories of Nonlinear Systems. New York: Wiley

    1980

  76. [84]

    1981.Nonlinear system theory

    Rugh WJ. 1981.Nonlinear system theory. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    1981

  77. [85]

    Bainier G, Chaillet A, Sepulchre R, Franci A. 2026. State-space fading memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23814

    2026 arXiv

  78. [86]

    1996.Spikes: exploring the neural code

    Rieke F, Warland D, Van Steveninck RdR, Bialek W. 1996.Spikes: exploring the neural code. MIT press 28 Smart et al

    1996

  79. [87]

    1959.Theory of Functionals and of Integral and Integro-Differential Equations

    Volterra V. 1959.Theory of Functionals and of Integral and Integro-Differential Equations. Dover Publications

    1959

  80. [88]

    1958.Nonlinear Problems in Random Theory

    Wiener N. 1958.Nonlinear Problems in Random Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    1958

  81. [89]

    Chua L, Kang SM. 1976. Memristive devices and systems.Proceedings of the IEEE64(2):209– 223

    1976

  82. [90]

    Chua L. 1971. Memristor-the missing circuit element.IEEE Transactions on Circuit Theory 18(5):507–519

    1971

  83. [91]

    Pershin YV, La Fontaine S, Di Ventra M. 2009. Memristive model of amoeba learning.Phys. Rev. E80(2):021926

    2009

  84. [92]

    Boon M, Smart M, Persikov A V, van Reijmersdal B, Maghbouli M, et al. 2026. Dynamical modeling of individual sensory reactivity and habituation learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences123(13):e2524738123

    2026

  85. [93]

    Zuo F, Panda P, Kotiuga M, Li J, Kang M, et al. 2017. Habituation based synaptic plasticity and organismic learning in a quantum perovskite.Nature Communications8(1):240

    2017

  86. [94]

    Patel RK, Zama K, Smart M, Eathirajan R, Seskar I, et al. 2026. Electromagnetic radiation stimulated learning in perovskite nickelates.Advanced Science:e75984

    2026

  87. [95]

    Park SO, Jeong H, Seo S, Kwon Y, Lee J, Choi S. 2025. Experimental demonstration of third- order memristor-based artificial sensory nervous system for neuro-inspired robotics.Nature Communications16(1):5754

    2025

  88. [96]

    Mondal S, Zhang Z, Islam AN, Andrawis R, Gamage S, et al. 2022. All-electric nonassociative learning in nickel oxide.Advanced Intelligent Systems4(10):2200069

    2022

  89. [97]

    Kukushkin NV, Carney RE, Tabassum T, Carew TJ. 2024. The massed-spaced learning effect in non-neural human cells.Nature Communications15(1):9635

    2024

  90. [98]

    Bonzanni M, Rouleau N, Levin M, Kaplan DL. 2020. Optogenetically induced cellular habit- uation in non-neuronal cells.PLoS One15(1):e0227230

    2020

  91. [99]

    2017.Bayesian learning and inference in recurrent switching linear dynamical systems

    Linderman S, Johnson M, Miller A, Adams R, Blei D, Paninski L. 2017.Bayesian learning and inference in recurrent switching linear dynamical systems. InArtificial intelligence and statistics, pp. 914–922. PMLR

    2017

  92. [100]

    Gibson WT, Gonzalez CR, Fernandez C, Ramasamy L, Tabachnik T, et al. 2015. Behavioral responses to a repetitive visual threat stimulus express a persistent state of defensive arousal in Drosophila.Current Biology25(11):1401–1415

    2015

  93. [101]

    Berne A, Zhang T, Shomar J, Ferrer AJ, Valdes A, et al. 2023. Mechanical vibration patterns elicit behavioral transitions and habituation in crawling Drosophila larvae.eLife12:e69205

    2023

  94. [102]

    Rajan DH, Marshall WF. 2025. A receptor-inactivation model for single-celled habituation in Stentor coeruleus.Current Biology35(14):3327–3340

    2025

  95. [103]

    Rajan DH, Albright A, Kim H, Diaz U, Hudnall Y, et al. 2026. Molecular pathways for learning in the single-cell Stentor coeruleus.Current Biology36(9):2367–2381

    2026

  96. [104]

    Maass W, Natschl¨ ager T, Markram H. 2002. Real-time computing without stable states: A new framework for neural computation based on perturbations.Neural Computation14(11):2531– 2560

    2002

  97. [105]

    echo state

    Jaeger H. 2001. The “echo state” approach to analysing and training recurrent neural networks- with an erratum note.German national research center for information technology GMD technical report148(34):13

    2001

  98. [106]

    Jaeger H, Lukoˇ seviˇ cius M, Popovici D, Siewert U. 2007. Optimization and applications of echo state networks with leaky-integrator neurons.Neural Networks20(3):335–352

    2007

  99. [107]

    Jaeger H, Maass W, Principe J. 2007. Special issue on echo state networks and liquid state machines.Neural Networks20(3):287–289

    2007

  100. [108]

    2020.HiPPO: Recurrent Memory with Optimal Poly- nomial Projections

    Gu A, Dao T, Ermon S, Rudra A, R´ e C. 2020.HiPPO: Recurrent Memory with Optimal Poly- nomial Projections. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. H Larochelle, M Ranzato, R Hadsell, M Balcan, H Lin, pp. 1474–1487, vol. 33, pp. 1474–1487. Curran Associates, In...

    2020

  101. [109]

    2022.Efficiently Modeling Long Sequences with Structured State Spaces

    Gu A, Goel K, Re C. 2022.Efficiently Modeling Long Sequences with Structured State Spaces. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net

    2022

  102. [110]

    2024.Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces

    Gu A, Dao T. 2024.Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces. In First Conference on Language Modeling

    2024

  103. [111]

    Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J. 1997. Long short-term memory.Neural Computation9(8):1735– 1780

    1997

  104. [112]

    Gers F A, Schmidhuber J, Cummins F. 2000. Learning to forget: Continual prediction with LSTM.Neural Computation12(10):2451–2471

    2000

  105. [113]

    2024.xLSTM: Extended Long Short-Term Memory

    Beck M, P¨ oppel K, Spanring M, Auer A, Prudnikova O, et al. 2024.xLSTM: Extended Long Short-Term Memory. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. A Glober- son, L Mackey, D Belgrave, A Fan, U Paquet, J Tomczak, C Zhang, pp. 107547–107603, vol. 37, pp. 107547–1...

    2024

  106. [114]

    2024.Transformers are SSMs: Generalized Models and Efficient Algorithms Through Structured State Space Duality

    Dao T, Gu A. 2024.Transformers are SSMs: Generalized Models and Efficient Algorithms Through Structured State Space Duality. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR

    2024

  107. [115]

    2023.State-space models with layer-wise nonlinearity are universal approxi- mators with exponential decaying memory

    Wang S, Xue B. 2023.State-space models with layer-wise nonlinearity are universal approxi- mators with exponential decaying memory. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems. Curran Associates, Inc

    2023

  108. [116]

    2024.Inverse Approximation Theory for Nonlinear Recurrent Neural Networks

    Wang S, Li Z, Li Q. 2024.Inverse Approximation Theory for Nonlinear Recurrent Neural Networks. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  109. [117]

    2024.Universality of linear recurrences followed by non-linear projections: finite-width guarantees and benefits of complex eigenvalues

    Orvieto A, De S, Gulcehre C, Pascanu R, Smith SL. 2024.Universality of linear recurrences followed by non-linear projections: finite-width guarantees and benefits of complex eigenvalues. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 38837–38863. PMLR

    2024

  110. [118]

    2024.Theoretical Foundations of Deep Selective State-Space Models

    Cirone NM, Orvieto A, Walker B, Salvi C, Lyons T. 2024.Theoretical Foundations of Deep Selective State-Space Models. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates, Inc

    2024

  111. [119]

    2017.Attention is All you Need

    Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, et al. 2017.Attention is All you Need. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. I Guyon, UV Luxburg, S Bengio, H Wallach, R Fergus, S Vishwanathan, R Garnett, vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc

    2017

  112. [120]

    2021.Hopfield Networks is All You Need

    Ramsauer H, Sch¨ afl B, Lehner J, Seidl P, Widrich M, et al. 2021.Hopfield Networks is All You Need. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net

    2021

  113. [121]

    2025.In-Context Denoising with One-Layer Transformers: Connections between Attention and Associative Memory Retrieval

    Smart M, Bietti A, Sengupta AM. 2025.In-Context Denoising with One-Layer Transformers: Connections between Attention and Associative Memory Retrieval. InInternational Confer- ence on Machine Learning, pp. 55950–55971. PMLR

    2025

  114. [122]

    Smart M, Ganguly S, Metya N, Morozov A V, Sengupta AM. 2026. Attention as in-context empirical bayes: A two-stage view via particle dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.29351

    2026 arXiv

  115. [123]

    De S, Smith SL, Fernando A, Botev A, Cristian-Muraru G, et al. 2024. Griffin: Mixing gated linear recurrences with local attention for efficient language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19427

    2024 arXiv

  116. [124]

    2025.Jamba: Hybrid Transformer- Mamba Language Models

    Lenz B, Lieber O, Arazi A, Bergman A, Manevich A, et al. 2025.Jamba: Hybrid Transformer- Mamba Language Models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Represen- tations. OpenReview.net

    2025

  117. [125]

    Merrill W, Li Y, Romero T, Svete A, Costello C, et al. 2026. Olmo hybrid: From theory to practice and back.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03444

    2026 arXiv

  118. [126]

    2023.Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory

    Kuznetsov Y. 2023.Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory. Applied Mathematical Sciences. Germany: Springer, 4th ed

    2023

  119. [127]

    Araujo RP, Liotta LA. 2023. Universal structures for adaptation in biochemical reaction net- works.Nature Communications14(1):2251

    2023

  120. [128]

    Sepulchre R, Cecconi A, Bin M, Marconi L. 2026. Regulation without calibration: From trajectory to event regulation.IEEE Control Systems46(1):55–69 30 Smart et al

    2026

  121. [129]

    Ganguli S, Huh D, Sompolinsky H. 2008. Memory traces in dynamical systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105(48):18970–18975

    2008

  122. [130]

    Dudai Y, Karni A, Born J. 2015. The consolidation and transformation of memory.Neuron 88(1):20–32 www.annualreviews.org • Dynamical principles of habituation 31

    2015

  123. [2024]

    Biochemically plausible models of habituation for single-cell learning.Current Biology 34(24):5646–5658.e3

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.