The Nature versus Nurture debate has generally been considered from the lens of genome versus experience dichotomy and has dominated our thinking about behavioral individuality and personality traits. In contrast, the role of nonheritable noise during brain development in behavioral variation is understudied. Using the Drosophila melanogaster visual system, I will discuss our efforts to dissect how individuality in circuit wiring emerges during development, and how that helps generate individual behavioral variation.

In the 17th century, physician Marcello Malpighi observed the existence of distinctive patterns of ridges and sweat glands on fingertips. This was a major breakthrough, and originated a long and continuing quest for ways to uniquely identify individuals based on fingerprints, a technique massively used until today. It is only in the past few years that technologies and methodologies have achieved high-quality measures of an individual’s brain to the extent that personality traits and behavior can be characterized. The concept of “fingerprints of the brain” is very novel and has been boosted thanks to a seminal publication by Finn et al. in 2015. They were among the firsts to show that an individual’s functional brain connectivity profile is both unique and reliable, similarly to a fingerprint, and that it is possible to identify an individual among a large group of subjects solely on the basis of her or his connectivity profile. Yet, the discovery of brain fingerprints opened up a plethora of new questions. In particular, what exactly is the information encoded in brain connectivity patterns that ultimately leads to correctly differentiating someone’s connectome from anybody else’s? In other words, what makes our brains unique? In this talk I am going to partially address these open questions while keeping a personal viewpoint on the subject. I will outline the main findings, discuss potential issues, and propose future directions in the quest for identifiability of human brain networks.

The regulation of body weight relies on homeostatic mechanisms that use a combination of internal signals and external cues to initiate and terminate food intake. Homeostasis depends on intricate communication between the body and the hypothalamus involving numerous neural and hormonal signals. However, there is growing evidence that higher-level cognitive function may also influence energy balance. For instance, research has shown that BMI is consistently linked to various brain, cognitive, and personality measures, implicating executive, reward, and attentional systems. Moreover, the rise in obesity rates over the past half-century is attributed to the affordability and widespread availability of highly processed foods, a phenomenon that contradicts the idea that food intake is solely regulated by homeostasis. I will suggest that prefrontal systems involved in value computation and motivation act to limit food overconsumption when food is scarce or expensive, but promote over-eating when food is abundant, an optimum strategy from an economic standpoint. I will review the genetic and neuroscience literature on the CNS control of body weight. I will present recent studies supporting a role of prefrontal systems in weight control. I will also present contradictory evidence showing that frontal executive and cognitive findings in obesity may be a consequence not a cause of increased hunger. Finally I will review the effects of obesity on brain anatomy and function. Chronic adiposity leads to cerebrovascular dysfunction, cortical thinning, and cognitive impairment. As the most common preventable risk factor for dementia, obesity poses a significant threat to brain health. I will conclude by reviewing evidence for treatment of obesity in adults to prevent brain disease.

Dysregulation of emotional processing and its integration with cognitive functions are central features of many mental/emotional disorders associated both with externalizing problems (aggressive, antisocial behaviors) and internalizing problems (anxiety, depression). As Dr. Joseph LeDoux, our invited speaker of this program, wrote in his famous book “Synaptic self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are”—the brain’s synapses—are the channels through which we think, act, imagine, feel, and remember. Synapses encode the essence of personality, enabling each of us to function as a distinctive, integrated individual from moment to moment. Thus, exploring the functioning of synapses leads to the understanding of the mechanism of (patho)physiological function of our brain. In this context, we have investigated the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders, with particular emphasis on the synaptic function of model mice of various psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, autism, depression, and PTSD. Our current interest is how synaptic inputs are integrated to generate the action potential. Because the spatiotemporal organization of neuronal firing is crucial for information processing, but how thousands of inputs to the dendritic spines drive the firing remains a central question in neuroscience. We identified a distinct pattern of synaptic integration in the disease-related models, in which extra-large (XL) spines generate NMDA spikes within these spines, which was sufficient to drive neuronal firing. We experimentally and theoretically observed that XL spines negatively correlated with working memory. Our work offers a whole new concept for dendritic computation and network dynamics, and the understanding of psychiatric research will be greatly reconsidered. The second half of my talk is the development of a novel synaptic tool. Because, no matter how beautifully we can illuminate the spine morphology and how accurately we can quantify the synaptic integration, the links between synapse and brain function remain correlational. In order to challenge the causal relationship between synapse and brain function, we established AS-PaRac1, which is unique not only because it can specifically label and manipulate the recently potentiated dendritic spine (Hayashi-Takagi et al, 2015, Nature). With use of AS-PaRac1, we developed an activity-dependent simultaneous labeling of the presynaptic bouton and the potentiated spines to establish “functional connectomics” in a synaptic resolution. When we apply this new imaging method for PTSD model mice, we identified a completely new functional neural circuit of brain region A→B→C with a very strong S/N in the PTSD model mice. This novel tool of “functional connectomics” and its photo-manipulation could open up new areas of emotional/psychiatric research, and by extension, shed light on the neural networks that determine who we are.

Initial social perceptions are often thought to reflect direct “read outs” of facial features. Instead, we outline a perspective whereby initial perceptions emerge from an automatic yet gradual process of negotiation between the perceptual cues inherent to a person (e.g., facial cues) and top-down social cognitive processes harbored within perceivers. This perspective argues that perceivers’ social-conceptual knowledge in particular can have a fundamental structuring role in perceptions, and thus how we think about social groups, emotions, or personality traits helps determine how we visually perceive them in other people. Integrative evidence from real-time behavioral paradigms (e.g., mouse-tracking), multivariate fMRI, and computational modeling will be discussed. Together, this work shows that the way we use facial cues to categorize other people into social groups (e.g., gender, race), perceive their emotion (e.g., anger), or infer their personality (e.g., trustworthiness) are all fundamentally shaped by prior social-conceptual knowledge and stereotypical assumptions. We find that these top-down impacts on initial perceptions are driven by the interplay of higher-order prefrontal regions involved in top-down predictions and lower-level fusiform regions involved in face processing. We argue that the perception of social categories, emotions, and traits from faces can all be conceived as resulting from an integrated system relying on domain-general cognitive properties. In this system, both visual and social cognitive processes are in a close exchange, and initial social perceptions emerge in part out of the structure of social-conceptual knowledge.

Many psychological theories assume that qualitatively different cognitive processes can result in identical responses. Multinomial processing tree (MPT) models allow researchers to disentangle latent cognitive processes based on observed response frequencies. Recently, MPT models have been extended to explicitly account for participant and item heterogeneity. These hierarchical Bayesian MPT models provide the opportunity to connect two traditionally isolated disciplines. Whereas cognitive psychology has often focused on the experimental validation of MPT model parameters on the group level, psychometrics provides the necessary concepts and tools for measuring differences in MPT parameters on the item or person level. Moreover, MPT parameters can be regressed on covariates to model latent processes as a function of personality traits or other person characteristics.