Current machine learning systems consume vastly more energy than biological brains. Neuromorphic systems aim to overcome this difference by mimicking the brain’s information coding via discrete voltage spikes. However, it remains unclear how both artificial and natural networks of spiking neurons can learn energy-efficient information processing strategies. Here we propose Predictive Coding Light (PCL), a recurrent hierarchical spiking neural network for unsupervised representation learning. In contrast to previous predictive coding approaches, PCL does not transmit prediction errors to higher processing stages. Instead, it suppresses the most predictable spikes and transmits a compressed representation of the input. Using only biologically plausible spike-timing based learning rules, PCL reproduces a wealth of findings on information processing in visual cortex and permits strong performance in downstream classification tasks. Overall, PCL offers a new approach to predictive coding and its implementation in natural and artificial spiking neural networks

Predictive processing offers a unifying view of neural computation, proposing that brains continuously anticipate sensory input and update internal models based on prediction errors. In this talk, I will present converging evidence for the computational mechanisms underlying this framework across human neuroscience and deep neural networks. I will begin with recent work showing that large-scale distributed prediction-error encoding in the human brain directly predicts how sensory representations reorganize through predictive learning. I will then turn to PredNet, a popular predictive coding inspired deep network that has been widely used to model real-world biological vision systems. Using dynamic stimuli generated with our Spatiotemporal Style Transfer algorithm, we demonstrate that PredNet relies primarily on low-level spatiotemporal structure and remains insensitive to high-level content, revealing limits in its generalization capacity. Finally, I will discuss new recurrent vision models that integrate top-down feedback connections with intrinsic neural variability, uncovering a dual mechanism for robust sensory coding in which neural variability decorrelates unit responses, while top-down feedback stabilizes network dynamics. Together, these results outline how prediction error signaling and top-down feedback pathways shape adaptive sensory processing in biological and artificial systems.

Understanding the neural mechanisms of reward-guided learning is a long-standing goal of computational neuroscience. Recent methodological innovations enable us to collect ever larger neural and behavioral datasets. This presents opportunities to achieve greater understanding of learning in the brain at scale, as well as methodological challenges. In the first part of the talk, I will discuss our recent insights into the mechanisms by which zebra finch songbirds learn to sing. Dopamine has been long thought to guide reward-based trial-and-error learning by encoding reward prediction errors. However, it is unknown whether the learning of natural behaviours, such as developmental vocal learning, occurs through dopamine-based reinforcement. Longitudinal recordings of dopamine and bird songs reveal that dopamine activity is indeed consistent with encoding a reward prediction error during naturalistic learning. In the second part of the talk, I will talk about recent work we are doing at DeepMind to develop tools for automatically discovering interpretable models of behavior directly from animal choice data. Our method, dubbed CogFunSearch, uses LLMs within an evolutionary search process in order to "discover" novel models in the form of Python programs that excel at accurately predicting animal behavior during reward-guided learning. The discovered programs reveal novel patterns of learning and choice behavior that update our understanding of how the brain solves reinforcement learning problems.

n the neurosciences the need for some 'overarching' theory is sometimes expressed, but it is not always obvious what is meant by this. One can perhaps agree that in modern science observation and experimentation is normally complemented by 'theory', i.e. the development of theoretical concepts that help guiding and evaluating experiments and measurements. A deeper discussion of 'brain theory' will require the clarification of some further distictions, in particular: theory vs. model and brain research (and its theory) vs. neuroscience. Other questions are: Does a theory require mathematics? Or even differential equations? Today it is often taken for granted that the whole universe including everything in it, for example humans, animals, and plants, can be adequately treated by physics and therefore theoretical physics is the overarching theory. Even if this is the case, it has turned out that in some particular parts of physics (the historical example is thermodynamics) it may be useful to simplify the theory by introducing additional theoretical concepts that can in principle be 'reduced' to more complex descriptions on the 'microscopic' level of basic physical particals and forces. In this sense, brain theory may be regarded as part of theoretical neuroscience, which is inside biophysics and therefore inside physics, or theoretical physics. Still, in neuroscience and brain research, additional concepts are typically used to describe results and help guiding experimentation that are 'outside' physics, beginning with neurons and synapses, names of brain parts and areas, up to concepts like 'learning', 'motivation', 'attention'. Certainly, we do not yet have one theory that includes all these concepts. So 'brain theory' is still in a 'pre-newtonian' state. However, it may still be useful to understand in general the relations between a larger theory and its 'parts', or between microscopic and macroscopic theories, or between theories at different 'levels' of description. This is what I plan to do.

In a first part of the talk, I will present Predictive Coding Light (PCL), a novel unsupervised learning architecture for spiking neural networks. In contrast to conventional predictive coding approaches, which only transmit prediction errors to higher processing stages, PCL learns inhibitory lateral and top-down connectivity to suppress the most predictable spikes and passes a compressed representation of the input to higher processing stages. We show that PCL reproduces a range of biological findings and exhibits a favorable tradeoff between energy consumption and downstream classification performance on challenging benchmarks. A second part of the talk will feature our lab’s efforts to explain how infants and toddlers might learn abstract object representations without supervision. I will present deep learning models that exploit the temporal and multimodal structure of their sensory inputs to learn representations of individual objects, object categories, or abstract super-categories such as „kitchen object“ in a fully unsupervised fashion. These models offer a parsimonious account of how abstract semantic knowledge may be rooted in children's embodied first-person experiences.

Understanding how brains learn requires bridging evidence across scales—from behaviour and neural circuits to cells, synapses, and molecules. In our work, we use computational modelling and data analysis to explore how the physical properties of neurons and neural circuits constrain learning. These include limits imposed by brain wiring, energy availability, molecular noise, and the 3D structure of dendritic spines. In this talk I will describe one such project testing if wiring motifs from fly brain connectomes can improve performance of reservoir computers, a type of recurrent neural network. The hope is that these insights into brain learning will lead to improved learning algorithms for artificial systems.

When we attend a demanding task, our performance is poor at low arousal (when drowsy) or high arousal (when anxious), but we achieve optimal performance at intermediate arousal. This celebrated Yerkes-Dodson inverted-U law relating performance and arousal is colloquially referred to as being "in the zone." In this talk, I will elucidate the behavioral and neural mechanisms linking arousal and performance under the Yerkes-Dodson law in a mouse model. During decision-making tasks, mice express an array of discrete strategies, whereby the optimal strategy occurs at intermediate arousal, measured by pupil, consistent with the inverted-U law. Population recordings from the auditory cortex (A1) further revealed that sound encoding is optimal at intermediate arousal. To explain the computational principle underlying this inverted-U law, we modeled the A1 circuit as a spiking network with excitatory/inhibitory clusters, based on the observed functional clusters in A1. Arousal induced a transition from a multi-attractor (low arousal) to a single attractor phase (high arousal), and performance is optimized at the transition point. The model also predicts stimulus- and arousal-induced modulations of neural variability, which we confirmed in the data. Our theory suggests that a single unifying dynamical principle, phase transitions in metastable dynamics, underlies both the inverted-U law of optimal performance and state-dependent modulations of neural variability.

All animal locomotion is rhythmic,whether it is achieved through undulatory movement of the whole body or the coordination of articulated limbs. Neurobiologists have long studied locomotor circuits that produce rhythmic activity with non-rhythmic input, also called central pattern generators (CPGs). However, the cellular and microcircuit implementation of a walking CPG has not been described for any limbed animal. New comprehensive connectomes of the fruit fly ventral nerve cord (VNC) provide an opportunity to study rhythmogenic walking circuits at a synaptic scale.We use a data-driven network modeling approach to identify and characterize a putative walking CPG in the Drosophila leg motor system.

Understanding the neural mechanisms of reward-guided learning is a long-standing goal of computational neuroscience. Recent methodological innovations enable us to collect ever larger neural and behavioral datasets. This presents opportunities to achieve greater understanding of learning in the brain at scale, as well as methodological challenges. In the first part of the talk, I will discuss our recent insights into the mechanisms by which zebra finch songbirds learn to sing. Dopamine has been long thought to guide reward-based trial-and-error learning by encoding reward prediction errors. However, it is unknown whether the learning of natural behaviours, such as developmental vocal learning, occurs through dopamine-based reinforcement. Longitudinal recordings of dopamine and bird songs reveal that dopamine activity is indeed consistent with encoding a reward prediction error during naturalistic learning. In the second part of the talk, I will talk about recent work we are doing at DeepMind to develop tools for automatically discovering interpretable models of behavior directly from animal choice data. Our method, dubbed CogFunSearch, uses LLMs within an evolutionary search process in order to "discover" novel models in the form of Python programs that excel at accurately predicting animal behavior during reward-guided learning. The discovered programs reveal novel patterns of learning and choice behavior that update our understanding of how the brain solves reinforcement learning problems.

Neural dynamics represent the hard-to-interpret substrate of circuit computations. Advances in large-scale recordings have highlighted the sheer spatiotemporal complexity of circuit dynamics within and across circuits, portraying in detail the difficulty of interpreting such dynamics and relating it to computation. Indeed, even in extremely simplified experimental conditions, one observes high-dimensional temporal dynamics in the relevant circuits. This complexity can be potentially addressed by the notion that not all changes in population activity have equal meaning, i.e., a small change in the evolution of activity along a particular dimension may have a bigger effect on a given computation than a large change in another. We term such conditions dimension-specific computation. Considering motor preparatory activity in a delayed response task we utilized neural recordings performed simultaneously with optogenetic perturbations to probe circuit dynamics. First, we revealed a remarkable robustness in the detailed evolution of certain dimensions of the population activity, beyond what was thought to be the case experimentally and theoretically. Second, the robust dimension in activity space carries nearly all of the decodable behavioral information whereas other non-robust dimensions contained nearly no decodable information, as if the circuit was setup to make informative dimensions stiff, i.e., resistive to perturbations, leaving uninformative dimensions sloppy, i.e., sensitive to perturbations. Third, we show that this robustness can be achieved by a modular organization of circuitry, whereby modules whose dynamics normally evolve independently can correct each other’s dynamics when an individual module is perturbed, a common design feature in robust systems engineering. Finally, we will recent work extending this framework to understanding the neural dynamics underlying preparation of speech.

How can the hippocampal system transition from episodic one-shot learning to a multi-shot learning regime and what is the utility of the resultant neural representations? This talk will explore the role of the dentate gyrus (DG) anatomy in this context. The canonical DG model suggests it performs pattern separation. More recent experimental results challenge this standard model, suggesting DG function is more complex and also supports the precise binding of objects and events to space and the integration of information across episodes. Very recent studies attribute pattern separation and pattern integration to anatomically distinct parts of the DG (the suprapyramidal blade vs the infrapyramidal blade). We propose a computational model that investigates this distinction. In the model the two processing streams (potentially localized in separate blades) contribute to the storage of distinct episodic memories, and the integration of information across episodes, respectively. The latter forms generalized expectations across episodes, eventually forming a cognitive map. We train the model with two data sets, MNIST and plausible entorhinal cortex inputs. The comparison between the two streams allows for the calculation of a prediction error, which can drive the storage of poorly predicted memories and the forgetting of well-predicted memories. We suggest that differential processing across the DG aids in the iterative construction of spatial cognitive maps to serve the generation of location-dependent expectations, while at the same time preserving episodic memory traces of idiosyncratic events.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

The brain has a highly complex structure in terms of cell types and wiring between different regions. What is it for, if anything? I'll start this talk by asking what might an answer to this question even look like given that we can't run an alternative universe where our brains are structured differently. (Preview: we can do this with models!) I'll then talk about some of our work in two areas: (1) does the modular structure of the brain contribute to specialisation of function? (2) how do different cell types and architectures contribute to multimodal sensory processing?

The centre of memory is the medial temporal lobe (MTL) and especially the hippocampus. In our research, a more flexible brain-inspired computational microcircuit of the CA1 region of the mammalian hippocampus was upgraded and used to examine how information retrieval could be affected under different conditions. Six models (1-6) were created by modulating different excitatory and inhibitory pathways. The results showed that the increase in the strength of the feedforward excitation was the most effective way to recall memories. In other words, that allows the system to access stored memories more accurately.