CNS 2020

Unlike even the most sophisticated current forms of artificial intelligence, developing biological organisms must build their neural hardware from scratch. Furthermore they must start to evade predators and find food before this construction process is complete. I will discuss an interdisciplinary program of mathematical and experimental work which addresses some of the computational principles underlying neural development. This includes (i) how growing axons navigate to their targets by detecting and responding to molecular cues in their environment, (ii) the formation of maps in the visual cortex and how these are influenced by visual experience, and (iii) how patterns of neural activity in the zebrafish brain develop to facilitate precisely targeted hunting behaviour. Together this work contributes to our understanding of both normal neural development and the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders.

Ants, bees and other insects have the ability to return to their nest or hive using a navigation strategy known as path integration. Similarly, fruit flies employ path integration to return to a previously visited food source. An important component of path integration is the ability of the insect to keep track of its heading relative to salient visual cues. A highly conserved brain region known as the central complex has been identified as being of key importance for the computations required for an insect to keep track of its heading. However, the similarities or differences of the underlying heading tracking circuit between species are not well understood. We sought to address this shortcoming by using reverse engineering techniques to derive the effective underlying neural circuits of two evolutionary distant species, the fruit fly and the locust. Our analysis revealed that regardless of the anatomical differences between the two species the essential circuit structure has not changed. Both effective neural circuits have the structural topology of a ring attractor with an eight-fold radial symmetry (Fig. 1). However, despite the strong similarities between the two ring attractors, there remain differences. Using computational modelling we found that two apparently small anatomical differences have significant functional effect on the ability of the two circuits to track fast rotational movements and to maintain a stable heading signal. In particular, the fruit fly circuit responds faster to abrupt heading changes of the animal while the locust circuit maintains a heading signal that is more robust to inhomogeneities in cell membrane properties and synaptic weights. We suggest that the effects of these differences are consistent with the behavioural ecology of the two species. On the one hand, the faster response of the ring attractor circuit in the fruit fly accommodates the fast body saccades that fruit flies are known to perform. On the other hand, the locust is a migratory species, so its behaviour demands maintenance of a defined heading for a long period of time. Our results highlight that even seemingly small differences in the distribution of dendritic fibres can have a significant effect on the dynamics of the effective ring attractor circuit with consequences for the behavioural capabilities of each species. These differences, emerging from morphologically distinct single neurons highlight the importance of a comparative approach to neuroscience.

In recent years it has become increasingly clear that (Shannon) information is a central resource for organisms, akin in importance to energy. Any decision that an organism or a subsystem of an organism takes involves the acquisition, selection, and processing of information and ultimately its concentration and enaction. It is the consequences of this balance that will occupy us in this talk. This perception-action loop picture of an agent's life cycle is well established and expounded especially in the context of Fuster's sensorimotor hierarchies. Nevertheless, the information-theoretic perspective drastically expands the potential and predictive power of the perception-action loop perspective. On the one hand information can be treated - to a significant extent - as a resource that is being sought and utilized by an organism. On the other hand, unlike energy, information is not additive. The intrinsic structure and dynamics of information can be exceedingly complex and subtle; in the last two decades one has discovered that Shannon information possesses a rich and nontrivial intrinsic structure that must be taken into account when informational contributions, information flow or causal interactions of processes are investigated, whether in the brain or in other complex processes. In addition, strong parallels between information and control theory have emerged. This parallelism between the theories allows one to obtain unexpected insights into the nature and properties of the perception-action loop. Through the lens of information theory, one can not only come up with novel hypotheses about necessary conditions for the organization of information processing in a brain, but also with constructive conjectures and predictions about what behaviours, brain structure and dynamics and even evolutionary pressures one can expect to operate on biological organisms, induced purely by informational considerations.

Synaptic scaling is a homeostatic normalization mechanism that preserves relative synaptic strengths by adjusting them with a common factor. This multiplicative change is believed to be critical, since synaptic strengths are involved in learning and memory retention. Further, this homeostatic process is thought to be crucial for neuronal stability, playing a stabilizing role in otherwise runaway Hebbian plasticity [1-3]. Synaptic scaling requires a mechanism to sense total neuron activity and globally adjust synapses to achieve some activity set-point [4]. This process is relatively slow, which places limits on its ability to stabilize network activity [5]. Here we show that this slow response is inevitable in realistic neuronal morphologies. Furthermore, we reveal that global scaling can in fact be a source of instability unless responsiveness or scaling accuracy are sacrificed." "A neuron with tens of thousands of synapses must regulate its own excitability to compensate for changes in input. The time requirement for global feedback can introduce critical phase lags in a neuron’s response to perturbation. The severity of phase lag increases with neuron size. Further, a more expansive morphology worsens cell responsiveness and scaling accuracy, especially in distal regions of the neuron. Local pools of reserve receptors improve efficiency, potentiation, and scaling, but this comes at a cost. Trafficking large quantities of receptors requires time, exacerbating the phase lag and instability. Local homeostatic feedback mitigates instability, but this too comes at the cost of reducing scaling accuracy." "Realization of the phase lag instability requires a unified model of synaptic scaling, regulation, and transport. We present such a model with global and local feedback in realistic neuron morphologies (Fig. 1). This combined model shows that neurons face a tradeoff between stability, accuracy, and efficiency. Global feedback is required for synaptic scaling but favors either system stability or efficiency. Large receptor pools improve scaling accuracy in large morphologies but worsen both stability and efficiency. Local feedback improves the stability-efficiency tradeoff at the cost of scaling accuracy. This project introduces unexplored constraints on neuron size, morphology, and synaptic scaling that are weakened by an interplay between global and local feedback.

The hippocampus-entorhinal system is critical for learning and memory. Recent cutting-edge single-cell technologies from RNAseq to electrophysiology are disclosing a so far unrecognized heterogeneity within the major cell types (1). Surprisingly, massive high-throughput recordings of these very same cells identify low dimensional microcircuit dynamics (2,3). Reconciling both views is critical to understand how the brain operates. " "The CA1 region is considered high in the hierarchy of the entorhinal-hippocampal system. Traditionally viewed as a single layered structure, recent evidence has disclosed an exquisite laminar organization across deep and superficial pyramidal sublayers at the transcriptional, morphological and functional levels (1,4,5). Such a low-dimensional segregation may be driven by a combination of intrinsic, biophysical and microcircuit factors but mechanisms are unknown." "Here, we exploit evolutionary algorithms to address the effect of single-cell heterogeneity on CA1 pyramidal cell activity (6). First, we developed a biophysically realistic model of CA1 pyramidal cells using the Hodgkin-Huxley multi-compartment formalism in the Neuron+Python platform and the morphological database Neuromorpho.org. We adopted genetic algorithms (GA) to identify passive, active and synaptic conductances resulting in realistic electrophysiological behavior. We then used the generated models to explore the functional effect of intrinsic, synaptic and morphological heterogeneity during oscillatory activities. By combining results from all simulations in a logistic regression model we evaluated the effect of up/down-regulation of different factors. We found that muyltidimensional excitatory and inhibitory inputs interact with morphological and intrinsic factors to determine a low dimensional subset of output features (e.g. phase-locking preference) that matches non-fitted experimental data.

Visual attention selects only a tiny fraction of visual input information for further processing. Selection starts in the primary visual cortex (V1), which creates a bottom-up saliency map to guide the fovea to selected visual locations via gaze shifts. This motivates a new framework that views vision as consisting of encoding, selection, and decoding stages, placing selection on center stage. It suggests a massive loss of non-selected information from V1 downstream along the visual pathway. Hence, feedback from downstream visual cortical areas to V1 for better decoding (recognition), through analysis-by- synthesis, should query for additional information and be mainly directed at the foveal region. Accordingly, non-foveal vision is not only poorer in spatial resolution, but also more susceptible to many illusions.

Impulsivity and compulsivity are behavioural traits that underlie many aspects of decision-making and form the characteristic symptoms of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Gambling Disorder (GD). The neural underpinnings of aspects of reward and avoidance learning under the expression of these traits and symptoms are only partially understood. " "The present study combined behavioural modelling and neuroimaging technique to examine brain activity associated with critical phases of reward and loss processing in OCD and GD. " "Forty-two healthy controls (HC), forty OCD and twenty-three GD participants were recruited in our study to complete a two-session reinforcement learning (RL) task featuring a “probability switch (PS)” with imaging scanning. Finally, 39 HC (20F/19M, 34 yrs +/- 9.47), 28 OCD (14F/14M, 32.11 yrs ±9.53) and 16 GD (4F/12M, 35.53yrs ± 12.20) were included with both behavioural and imaging data available. The functional imaging was conducted by using 3.0-T SIEMENS MAGNETOM Skyra syngo MR D13C at Monash Biomedical Imaging. Each volume compromised 34 coronal slices of 3 mm thickness with 2000 ms TR and 30 ms TE. A total of 479 volumes were acquired for each participant in each session in an interleaved-ascending manner. " " The standard Q-learning model was fitted to the observed behavioural data and the Bayesian model was used for the parameter estimation. Imaging analysis was conducted using SPM12 (Welcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom) in the Matlab (R2015b) environment. The pre-processing commenced with the slice timing, realignment, normalization to MNI space according to T1-weighted image and smoothing with a 8 mm Gaussian kernel. " " The frontostriatal brain circuit including the putamen and medial orbitofrontal (mOFC) were significantly more active in response to receiving reward and avoiding punishment compared to receiving an aversive outcome and missing reward at 0.001 with FWE correction at cluster level; While the right insula showed greater activation in response to missing rewards and receiving punishment. Compared to healthy participants, GD patients showed significantly lower activation in the left superior frontal and posterior cingulum at 0.001 for the gain omission. " " The reward prediction error (PE) signal was found positively correlated with the activation at several clusters expanding across cortical and subcortical region including the striatum, cingulate, bilateral insula, thalamus and superior frontal at 0.001 with FWE correction at cluster level. The GD patients showed a trend of decreased reward PE response in the right precentral extending to left posterior cingulate compared to controls at 0.05 with FWE correction. " " The aversive PE signal was negatively correlated with brain activity in regions including bilateral thalamus, hippocampus, insula and striatum at 0.001 with FWE correction. Compared with the control group, GD group showed an increased aversive PE activation in the cluster encompassing right thalamus and right hippocampus, and also the right middle frontal extending to the right anterior cingulum at 0.005 with FWE correction. " " Through the reversal learning task, the study provided a further support of the dissociable brain circuits for distinct phases of reward and avoidance learning. Also, the OCD and GD is characterised by aberrant patterns of reward and avoidance processing.

The last few years have seen some dramatic developments in artificial intelligence research. What implications might these have for neuroscience? Investigations of this question have, to date, focused largely on deep neural networks trained using supervised learning, in tasks such as image classification. However, there is another area of recent AI work which has so far received less attention from neuroscientists, but which may have more profound neuroscientific implications: Deep reinforcement learning. Deep RL offers a rich framework for studying the interplay among learning, representation and decision-making, offering to the brain sciences a new set of research tools and a wide range of novel hypotheses. I’ll provide a high level introduction to deep RL, discuss some recent neuroscience-oriented investigations from my group at DeepMind, and survey some wider implications for research on brain and behavior.