Which nodes in a brain network causally influence one another, and how do such interactions utilize the underlying structural connectivity? One of the fundamental goals of neuroscience is to pinpoint such causal relations. Conventionally, these relationships are established by manipulating a node while tracking changes in another node. A causal role is then assigned to the first node if this intervention led to a significant change in the state of the tracked node. In this presentation, I use a series of intuitive thought experiments to demonstrate the methodological shortcomings of the current ‘causation via manipulation’ framework. Namely, a node might causally influence another node, but how much and through which mechanistic interactions? Therefore, establishing a causal relationship, however reliable, does not provide the proper causal understanding of the system, because there often exists a wide range of causal influences that require to be adequately decomposed. To do so, I introduce a game-theoretical framework called Multi-perturbation Shapley value Analysis (MSA). Then, I present our work in which we employed MSA on an Echo State Network (ESN), quantified how much its nodes were influencing each other, and compared these measures with the underlying synaptic strength. We found that: 1. Even though the network itself was sparse, every node could causally influence other nodes. In this case, a mere elucidation of causal relationships did not provide any useful information. 2. Additionally, the full knowledge of the structural connectome did not provide a complete causal picture of the system either, since nodes frequently influenced each other indirectly, that is, via other intermediate nodes. Our results show that just elucidating causal contributions in complex networks such as the brain is not sufficient to draw mechanistic conclusions. Moreover, quantifying causal interactions requires a systematic and extensive manipulation framework. The framework put forward here benefits from employing neural network models, and in turn, provides explainability for them.

Abuse, neglect, and other forms of uncontrollable stress during childhood and early adolescence can lead to adverse outcomes later in life, including especially perturbations in the regulation of mood and emotional states, and specifically anxiety disorders and depression. However, stress experiences vary from one individual to the next, meaning that causal relationships and mechanistic accounts are often difficult to establish in humans. This interdisciplinary talk considers the value of research in experimental animals where stressor experiences can be tightly controlled and detailed investigations of molecular, cellular, and circuit-level mechanisms can be carried out. The talk will focus on the widely used repeated maternal separation procedure in rats where rat offspring are repeatedly separated from maternal care during early postnatal life. This early life stress has remarkably persistent effects on behaviour with a general recognition that maternally-deprived animals are susceptible to depressive-like phenotypes. The validity of this conclusion will be critically appraised with convergent insights from a recent longitudinal study in maternally separated rats involving translational brain imaging, transcriptomics, and behavioural assessment.

In the past few years, there has been growing evidence that the basic ability for relational generalization starts in early infancy, with 3-month-olds seeming to learn relational abstractions with little training. Further, work with toddlers seem to suggest that relational generalizations are no more difficult than those based on objects, and they can readily consider both simultaneously. Likewise, causal learning research with adults suggests that people infer causal relationships at multiple levels of abstraction simultaneously as they learn about novel causal systems. These findings all appear counter to theories of concept learning that posit when concepts are first learned they tend to be concrete (tied to specific contexts and features) and abstraction proceeds incrementally as learners encounter more examples. The current talk will not question the veracity of any of these findings but will present several others from my and others’ research on relational learning that suggests that when the perceptual or conceptual content becomes more complex, patterns of incremental abstraction re-emerge. Further, the specific contexts and task parameters that support or hinder abstraction reveal the underlying cognitive processes. I will then consider whether the models that posit simultaneous, immediate learning at multiple levels of abstraction can accommodate these more complex patterns.