Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAppreciating the variety of goals in computational neuroscience
100
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Within computational neuroscience, informal interactions with modelers often reveal wildly divergent goals. In this opinion piece, we explicitly address the diversity of goals that motivate and ultimately influence modeling efforts. We argue that a wide range of goals can be meaningfully taken to be of highest importance. A simple informal survey conducted on the Internet confirmed the diversity of goals in the community. However, different priorities or preferences of individual researchers can lead to divergent model evaluation criteria. We propose that many disagreements in evaluating the merit of computational research stem from differences in goals and not from the mechanics of constructing, describing, and validating models. We suggest that authors state explicitly their goals when proposing models so that others can judge the quality of the research with respect to its stated goals.
rate research
Read More
The deep neural nets of modern artificial intelligence (AI) have not achieved defining features of biological intelligence, including abstraction, causal learning, and energy-efficiency. While scaling to larger models has delivered performance improvements for current applications, more brain-like capacities may demand new theories, models, and methods for designing artificial learning systems. Here, we argue that this opportunity to reassess insights from the brain should stimulate cooperation between AI research and theory-driven computational neuroscience (CN). To motivate a brain basis of neural computation, we present a dynamical view of intelligence from which we elaborate concepts of sparsity in network structure, temporal dynamics, and interactive learning. In particular, we suggest that temporal dynamics, as expressed through neural synchrony, nested oscillations, and flexible sequences, provide a rich computational layer for reading and updating hierarchical models distributed in long-term memory networks. Moreover, embracing agent-centered paradigms in AI and CN will accelerate our understanding of the complex dynamics and behaviors that build useful world models. A convergence of AI/CN theories and objectives will reveal dynamical principles of intelligence for brains and engineered learning systems. This article was inspired by our symposium on dynamical neuroscience and machine learning at the 6th Annual US/NIH BRAIN Initiative Investigators Meeting.
Almost all research work in computational neuroscience involves software. As researchers try to understand ever more complex systems, there is a continual need for software with new capabilities. Because of the wide range of questions being investigated, new software is often developed rapidly by individuals or small groups. In these cases, it can be hard to demonstrate that the software gives the right results. Software developers are often open about the code they produce and willing to share it, but there is little appreciation among potential users of the great diversity of software development practices and end results, and how this affects the suitability of software tools for use in research projects. To help clarify these issues, we have reviewed a range of software tools and asked how the culture and practice of software development affects their validity and trustworthiness. We identified four key questions that can be used to categorize software projects and correlate them with the type of product that results. The first question addresses what is being produced. The other three concern why, how, and by whom the work is done. The answers to these questions show strong correlations with the nature of the software being produced, and its suitability for particular purposes. Based on our findings, we suggest ways in which current software development practice in computational neuroscience can be improved and propose checklists to help developers, reviewers and scientists to assess the quality whether particular pieces of software are ready for use in research.
Individual neurons often produce highly variable responses over nominally identical trials, reflecting a mixture of intrinsic noise and systematic changes in the animals cognitive and behavioral state. In addition to investigating how noise and state changes impact neural computation, statistical models of trial-to-trial variability are becoming increasingly important as experimentalists aspire to study naturalistic animal behaviors, which never repeat themselves exactly and may rarely do so even approximately. Estimating the basic features of neural response distributions may seem impossible in this trial-limited regime. Fortunately, by identifying and leveraging simplifying structure in neural data -- e.g. shared gain modulations across neural subpopulations, temporal smoothness in neural firing rates, and correlations in responses across behavioral conditions -- statistical estimation often remains tractable in practice. We review recent advances in statistical neuroscience that illustrate this trend and have enabled novel insights into the trial-by-trial operation of neural circuits.
In recent years, the field of neuroscience has gone through rapid experimental advances and extensive use of quantitative and computational methods. This accelerating growth has created a need for methodological analysis of the role of theory and the modeling approaches currently used in this field. Toward that end, we start from the general view that the primary role of science is to solve empirical problems, and that it does so by developing theories that can account for phenomena within their domain of application. We propose a commonly-used set of terms - descriptive, mechanistic, and normative - as methodological designations that refer to the kind of problem a theory is intended to solve. Further, we find that models of each kind play distinct roles in defining and bridging the multiple levels of abstraction necessary to account for any neuroscientific phenomenon. We then discuss how models play an important role to connect theory and experiment, and note the importance of well-defined translation functions between them. Furthermore, we describe how models themselves can be used as a form of experiment to test and develop theories. This report is the summary of a discussion initiated at the conference Present and Future Theoretical Frameworks in Neuroscience, which we hope will contribute to a much-needed discussion in the neuroscientific community.
Over the last several years, the use of machine learning (ML) in neuroscience has been rapidly increasing. Here, we review MLs contributions, both realized and potential, across several areas of systems neuroscience. We describe four primary roles of ML within neuroscience: 1) creating solutions to engineering problems, 2) identifying predictive variables, 3) setting benchmarks for simple models of the brain, and 4) serving itself as a model for the brain. The breadth and ease of its applicability suggests that machine learning should be in the toolbox of most systems neuroscientists.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
