Neuro-Informatics seminars

Neuroscience is experiencing unprecedented growth in dataset size both within individual brains and across populations. Large-scale, multimodal datasets are transforming our understanding of brain structure and function, creating opportunities to address previously unexplored questions. However, managing this increasing data volume requires new training and technology approaches. Modern data technologies are reshaping neuroscience by enabling researchers to tackle complex questions within a Ph.D. or postdoctoral timeframe. I will discuss cloud-based platforms such as brainlife.io, that provide scalable, reproducible, and accessible computational infrastructure. Modern data technology can democratize neuroscience, accelerate discovery and foster scientific transparency and collaboration. Concrete examples will illustrate how these technologies can be applied to mapping brain connectivity, studying human learning and development, and developing predictive models for traumatic brain injury (TBI). By integrating cloud computing and scalable data-sharing frameworks, neuroscience can become more impactful, inclusive, and data-driven..

In systems neuroscience, datasets are multimodal and include data-streams of various origins: multichannel electrophysiology, 1- or 2-p calcium imaging, behavior, etc. Often, the exact nature of data streams are unique to each lab, if not each project. Analyzing these datasets in an efficient and open way is crucial for collaboration and reproducibility. In this combined webinar and tutorial, Adrien Peyrache and Guillaume Viejo will present Pynapple, a Python-based data analysis pipeline for systems neuroscience. Designed for flexibility and versatility, Pynapple allows users to perform cross-modal neural data analysis via a common programming approach which facilitates easy sharing of both analysis code and data.

In modern neuroscience, we often want to extract information from recordings of many neurons in the brain. Unfortunately, the activity of individual neurons is very noisy, making it difficult to relate to cognition and behavior. Thankfully, we can use the correlations across time and neurons to denoise the data we record. In particular, using recent advances in machine learning, we can build models which harness this structure in the data to extract more interpretable signals. In this talk, we present two such methods as well as examples of how they can help us gain further insights into the neural underpinnings of behavior.

Large-scale neural recordings contain high-dimensional structure that cannot be easily captured by existing data visualization methods. We therefore developed an embedding algorithm called Rastermap, which captures highly nonlinear relationships between neurons, and provides useful visualizations by assigning each neuron to a location in the embedding space. Compared to standard algorithms such as t-SNE and UMAP, Rastermap finds finer and higher dimensional patterns of neural variability, as measured by quantitative benchmarks. We applied Rastermap to a variety of datasets, including spontaneous neural activity, neural activity during a virtual reality task, widefield neural imaging data during a 2AFC task, artificial neural activity from an agent playing atari games, and neural responses to visual textures. We found within these datasets unique subpopulations of neurons encoding abstract properties of the environment.

Large-scale, single neuron resolution recordings are inherently high-dimensional, with as many dimensions as neurons. To make sense of them, for many the answer is: reduce the number of dimensions. In this talk I argue we can distinguish weak and strong principles of neural dimension reduction. The weak principle is that dimension reduction is a convenient tool for making sense of complex neural data. The strong principle is that dimension reduction moves us closer to how neural circuits actually operate and compute. Elucidating these principles is crucial, for which we subscribe to provides radically different interpretations of the same dimension reduction techniques applied to the same data. I outline experimental evidence for each principle, but illustrate how we could make either the weak or strong principles appear to be true based on innocuous looking analysis decisions. These insights suggest arguments over low and high-dimensional neural activity need better constraints from both experiment and theory.