Seminars

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.

Gaze shifts in humans serve to direct high-resolution vision provided by the fovea towards areas in the environment. Gaze can be considered a proxy for attention or indicator of the relative importance of different parts of the environment. In this talk, we discuss the development of generative models of human gaze in response to visual input. We discuss how such models can be learned, both using supervised learning and using implicit feedback as an agent interacts with the environment, the latter being more plausible in biological agents. We also discuss two ways such models can be used. First, they can be used to improve the performance of artificial autonomous systems, in applications such as autonomous navigation. Second, because these models are contingent on the human’s task, goals, and/or state in the context of the environment, observations of gaze can be used to infer information about user intent. This information can be used to improve human-machine and human robot interaction, by making interfaces more anticipative. We discuss example applications in gaze-typing, robotic tele-operation and human-robot interaction.

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.

We have entered a golden age of artificial intelligence research, driven mainly by the advances in the artificial neural networks over the last several decades. Applications of these techniques—to machine vision, speech recognition, autonomous vehicles, natural language, and many other domains—are coming so quickly that many observers predict that the long-elusive goal of “Artificial General Intelligence” (AGI) is within our grasp. However, we still cannot build a machine capable of building a nest, stalking prey, or loading a dishwasher. I will describe how evolution may have shaped the algorithms that the brain is using to solve some of these challenging problems. Presented in the van Vreeswijk Theoretical Neuroscience Seminar series (formerly WWTNS) on 2025-05-21. Recording duration: 00:44:20.

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.

The brain is one of the most energy intense organs. Some of this energyis used for neural information processing, however, fruitfly experiments have shown that also learning is metabolically costly. We will present estimates of this cost and introduce a general model of this cost, and compare it to costs in computers. Next, we turn to a supervised artificial network setting and explore a number of strategies that cansave energy need for plasticity. Either by modifying the objective function, by restricting plasticity, or by using less costly transient forms of plasticity. Finally, we will discuss adaptive strategies and possible relevance for biological learning. Presented in the van Vreeswijk Theoretical Neuroscience Seminar series (formerly WWTNS) on 2025-05-07. Recording duration: 00:34:58.

For decades dynamical systems theory played a pivotal role in theoretical and computational neuroscience, as it links biophysical and biochemical processes to neural computation. In fact, dynamical systems are computationally universal. Rather than hand-crafting computational theories of neural function based on dynamical systems, recent developments in scientific machine learning (ML) and AI suggest that we may be able to infer such dynamical-computational models directly from neurophysiological and behavioral observations. This is called dynamical systems reconstruction (DSR), the learning of generative surrogate models of the underlying dynamics, including its long-term temporal and geometrical properties, from time series data. In my talk I will cover recent ML/AI architectures, training algorithms, and validation procedures for DSR. I will discuss specifically how recent AI architectures for DSR can integrate neuroscience data from multiple modalities (like multiple single-unit recordings and behavioral choices), across diverse time scales, and across many different animals and task designs, into a joint DSR model. This provides first steps toward dynamical systems based AI foundation models for neuroscience. Presented in the van Vreeswijk Theoretical Neuroscience Seminar series (formerly WWTNS) on 2025-04-23. Recording duration: 00:53:24.

Susan Athey examines how machine learning and digital interventions can help explain and improve workers’ transitions between jobs. One project uses Swedish administrative data to identify groups whose earnings and employment are less resilient after layoffs, revealing substantial differences among workers within the same firms and labour markets. A second line of work uses transformer models and large language models to represent careers and analyse gender wage gaps, identifying settings in which large unexplained differences persist. Two further projects develop and evaluate digital interventions intended to help disadvantaged workers enter expanding occupations in information technology and data science. The lecture connects new methods for measuring labour-market disadvantage with evidence about practical interventions.

Recent advances in techniques for monitoring and perturbing neural populations have greatly enhanced our ability to study circuits in the brain. In particular, two-photon holographic optogenetics now enables precise photostimulation of experimenter-specified groups of individual neurons, while simultaneous two-photon calcium imaging enables the measurement of ongoing and induced activity across the neural population. Despite the enormous space of potential photostimulation patterns and the time-consuming nature of photostimulation experiments, very little algorithmic work has been done to determine the most effective photostimulation patterns for identifying the neural population dynamics. Here, I will discuss ongoing development of active learning techniques to efficiently select which neurons to stimulate such that the resulting neural responses will best inform a dynamical model of the neural population activity. Presented in the van Vreeswijk Theoretical Neuroscience Seminar series (formerly WWTNS) on 2025-02-05. Recording duration: 00:42:29.

David Baker, Demis Hassabis and John Jumper examine two complementary computational problems: designing proteins with desired properties and predicting the structures adopted by natural amino acid sequences. Baker describes the development of methods for creating new protein structures and functions. Hassabis discusses the use of artificial intelligence to accelerate scientific discovery, while Jumper explains the integration of chemical and biological reasoning into protein-structure prediction. The programme connects sequence, three-dimensional structure and function, and shows how computational approaches changed what researchers can attempt in protein science. It preserves the distinction between de novo design and prediction while explaining why advances in both can support biological understanding and the creation of useful molecules.

John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton explain how ideas from physics helped establish computational models that store patterns and learn from data. Hopfield develops a physical perspective on collective computation, including associative memories in which network dynamics recover stored patterns from incomplete or distorted inputs. Hinton examines Boltzmann machines, connecting probabilistic neural networks and learning to concepts from statistical physics. Together, the lectures link energy landscapes, interacting units and stochastic behaviour with mechanisms for representation and computation. They provide the scientific background to the neural-network contributions recognised by the 2024 physics prize and the conceptual route from models of collective systems to machine learning.

This webinar addressed computational perspectives on how animals and humans make decisions, spanning normative, descriptive, and mechanistic models. Sam Gershman (Harvard) presented a capacity-limited reinforcement learning framework in which policies are compressed under an information bottleneck constraint. This approach predicts pervasive perseveration, stimulus‐independent “default” actions, and trade-offs between complexity and reward. Such policy compression reconciles observed action stochasticity and response time patterns with an optimal balance between learning capacity and performance. Jonathan Pillow (Princeton) discussed flexible descriptive models for tracking time-varying policies in animals. He introduced dynamic Generalized Linear Models (Sidetrack) and hidden Markov models (GLM-HMMs) that capture day-to-day and trial-to-trial fluctuations in choice behavior, including abrupt switches between “engaged” and “disengaged” states. These models provide new insights into how animals’ strategies evolve under learning. Finally, Kenji Doya (OIST) highlighted the importance of unifying reinforcement learning with Bayesian inference, exploring how cortical-basal ganglia networks might implement model-based and model-free strategies. He also described Japan’s Brain/MINDS 2.0 and Digital Brain initiatives, aiming to integrate multimodal data and computational principles into cohesive “digital brains.”

This webinar features presentations from SueYeon Chung (New York University) and Srinivas Turaga (HHMI Janelia Research Campus) on theoretical and computational approaches to sensory cognition. Chung introduced a “neural manifold” framework to capture how high-dimensional neural activity is structured into meaningful manifolds reflecting object representations. She demonstrated that manifold geometry—shaped by radius, dimensionality, and correlations—directly governs a population’s capacity for classifying or separating stimuli under nuisance variations. Applying these ideas as a data analysis tool, she showed how measuring object-manifold geometry can explain transformations along the ventral visual stream and suggested that manifold principles also yield better self-supervised neural network models resembling mammalian visual cortex. Turaga described simulating the entire fruit fly visual pathway using its connectome, modeling 64 key cell types in the optic lobe. His team’s systematic approach—combining sparse connectivity from electron microscopy with simple dynamical parameters—recapitulated known motion-selective responses and produced novel testable predictions. Together, these studies underscore the power of combining connectomic detail, task objectives, and geometric theories to unravel neural computations bridging from stimuli to cognitive functions.

This webinar convened researchers at the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience to investigate how large language models (LLMs) can serve as valuable “model organisms” for understanding human language processing. Presenters showcased evidence that brain recordings (fMRI, MEG, ECoG) acquired while participants read or listened to unconstrained speech can be predicted by representations extracted from state-of-the-art text- and speech-based LLMs. In particular, text-based LLMs tend to align better with higher-level language regions, capturing more semantic aspects, while speech-based LLMs excel at explaining early auditory cortical responses. However, purely low-level features can drive part of these alignments, complicating interpretations. New methods, including perturbation analyses, highlight which linguistic variables matter for each cortical area and time scale. Further, “brain tuning” of LLMs—fine-tuning on measured neural signals—can improve semantic representations and downstream language tasks. Despite open questions about interpretability and exact neural mechanisms, these results demonstrate that LLMs provide a promising framework for probing the computations underlying human language comprehension and production at multiple spatiotemporal scales.

Biological agents continually reconcile the internal states of their brain circuits with incoming sensory and environmental evidence to evaluate when and how to act. The brains of biological agents, including animals and humans, exploit many evolutionary innovations, chiefly modularity—observable at the level of anatomically-defined brain regions, cortical layers, and cell types among others—that can be repurposed in a compositional manner to endow the animal with a highly flexible behavioral repertoire. Accordingly, their behaviors show their own modularity, yet such behavioral modules seldom correspond directly to traditional notions of modularity in brains. It remains unclear how to link neural and behavioral modularity in a compositional manner. We propose a comprehensive framework—compositional modes—to identify overarching compositionality spanning specialized submodules, such as brain regions. Our framework directly links the behavioral repertoire with distributed patterns of population activity, brain-wide, at multiple concurrent spatial and temporal scales. Using whole-brain recordings of zebrafish brains, we introduce an unsupervised pipeline based on neural network models, constrained by biological data, to reveal highly conserved compositional modes across individuals despite the naturalistic (spontaneous or task-independent) nature of their behaviors. These modes provided a scaffolding for other modes that account for the idiosyncratic behavior of each fish. We then demonstrate experimentally that compositional modes can be manipulated in a consistent manner by behavioral and pharmacological perturbations. Our results demonstrate that even natural behavior in different individuals can be decomposed and understood using a relatively small number of neurobehavioral modules—the compositional modes—and elucidate a compositional neural basis of behavior. This approach aligns with recent progress in understanding how reasoning capabilities and internal representational structures develop over the course of learning or training, offering insights into the modularity and flexibility in artificial and biological agents.

In this talk, I will explore how social affective biases arise even in the absence of motivational factors as an emergent outcome of the basic structure of social learning. In several studies, we found that initial negative interactions with some members of a group can cause subsequent avoidance of the entire group, and that this avoidance perpetuates stereotypes. Additional cognitive modeling discovered that approach and avoidance behavior based on biased beliefs not only influences the evaluative (positive or negative) impressions of group members, but also shapes the depth of the cognitive representations available to learn about individuals. In other words, people have richer cognitive representations of members of groups that are not avoided, akin to individualized vs group level categories. I will end presenting a series of multi-agent reinforcement learning simulations that demonstrate the emergence of these social-structural feedback loops in the development and maintenance of affective biases.

Deep learning provides new data-driven tools to relate neural activity to perception and cognition, aiding scientists in developing theories of neural computation that increasingly resemble biological systems both at the level of behavior and of neural activity. But what in a deep neural network should correspond to what in a biological system? This question is addressed implicitly in the use of comparison measures that relate specific neural or behavioral dimensions via a particular functional form. However, distinct comparison methodologies can give conflicting results in recovering even a known ground-truth model in an idealized setting, leaving open the question of what to conclude from the outcome of a systems comparison using any given methodology. Here, we develop a framework to make explicit and quantitative the effect of both hypothesis-driven aspects—such as details of the architecture of a deep neural network—as well as methodological choices in a systems comparison setting. We demonstrate via the learning dynamics of deep neural networks that, while the role of the comparison methodology is often de-emphasized relative to hypothesis-driven aspects, this choice can impact and even invert the conclusions to be drawn from a comparison between neural systems. We provide evidence that the right way to adjudicate a comparison depends on the use case—the scientific hypothesis under investigation—which could range from identifying single-neuron or circuit-level correspondences to capturing generalizability to new stimulus properties

There are over 30 million people with drug-resistant epilepsy worldwide. When neuroimaging and non-invasive neural recordings fail to localise seizure onset zones (SOZ), intracranial recordings become the best chance for localisation and seizure-freedom in those patients. However, intracranial neural activities remain hard to visually discriminate across recording channels, which limits the success of intracranial visual investigations. In this presentation, I present methods which quantify intracranial neural time series and combine them with explainable machine learning algorithms to localise the SOZ in the epileptic brain. I present the potentials and limitations of our methods in the localisation of SOZ in epilepsy providing insights for future research in this area.