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.

Emotion is defined as a rapid psychological process involving experiential, expressive and physiological responses. These emerge following an appraisal process that involves cognitive evaluations of the environment assessing its relevance, implication, coping potential, and normative significance. It has been suggested that changes in appraisal processes lead to changes in the resulting emotional nature. Simultaneously, it was demonstrated that personality can be seen as a predisposition to feel more frequently certain emotions, but the personality-appraisal-emotional response chain is rarely fully investigated. The present project thus sought to investigate the extent to which personality traits influence certain appraisals, which in turn influence the subsequent emotional reactions via a systematic analysis of the link between personality traits of different current models, specific appraisals, and emotional response patterns at the experiential, expressive, and physiological levels. Major results include the coherence of emotion components clustering, and the centrality of the pleasantness, coping potential and consequences appraisals, in context; and the differentiated mediating role of cognitive appraisal in the relation between personality and the intensity and duration of an emotional state, and autonomic arousal, such as Extraversion-pleasantness-experience, and Neuroticism-powerlessness-arousal. Elucidating these relationships deepens our understanding of individual differences in emotional reactivity and spot routes of action on appraisal processes to modify upcoming adverse emotional responses, with a broader societal impact on clinical and non-clinical populations.

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.

People are confronted every day with internal or external stimuli that can elicit emotions. In order to avoid negative ones, or to pursue individual aims, emotions are often regulated. The available emotion regulation strategies have been previously described as efficient or inefficient, but many studies highlighted that the strategies’ efficiency may be influenced by some different aspects such as personality. In this project, the efficiency of several strategies (e.g., reappraisal, suppression, distraction, …) has been studied according to personality profiles, by using the Big Five personality model and the Maladaptive Personality Trait Model. Moreover, the strategies’ efficiency has been tested according to the main emotional responses, namely experience, expressivity and physiological arousal. Results mainly highlighted the differential impact of strategies on individuals and a slight impact of personality. An important factor seems however to be the emotion parameter we are considering, potentially revealing a complex interplay between strategy, personality, and the considered emotion response. Based on these outcomes, further clinical aspects and recommendations will be also discussed.

This presentation delves into the necessity for simplified models in the field of psychological sciences to cater to a diverse audience of practitioners. We introduce the #PsychMapping model, evaluate its merits and limitations, and discuss its place in contemporary scientific culture. The #PsychMapping model is the product of an extensive literature review, initially within the realm of sport and exercise psychology and subsequently encompassing a broader spectrum of psychological sciences. This model synthesizes the progress made in psychological sciences by categorizing variables into a framework that distinguishes between traits (e.g., body structure and personality) and states (e.g., heart rate and emotions). Furthermore, it delineates internal traits and states from the externalized self, which encompasses behaviour and performance. All three components—traits, states, and the externalized self—are in a continuous interplay with external physical, social, and circumstantial factors. Two core processes elucidate the interactions among these four primary clusters: external perception, encompassing the mechanism through which external stimuli transition into internal events, and self-regulation, which empowers individuals to become autonomous agents capable of exerting control over themselves and their actions. While the model inherently oversimplifies intricate processes, the central question remains: does its pragmatic utility outweigh its limitations, and can it serve as a valuable tool for comprehending human behaviour?

This presentation delves into the necessity for simplified models in the field of psychological sciences to cater to a diverse audience of practitioners. We introduce the #PsychMapping model, evaluate its merits and limitations, and discuss its place in contemporary scientific culture. The #PsychMapping model is the product of an extensive literature review, initially within the realm of sport and exercise psychology and subsequently encompassing a broader spectrum of psychological sciences. This model synthesizes the progress made in psychological sciences by categorizing variables into a framework that distinguishes between traits (e.g., body structure and personality) and states (e.g., heart rate and emotions). Furthermore, it delineates internal traits and states from the externalized self, which encompasses behaviour and performance. All three components—traits, states, and the externalized self—are in a continuous interplay with external physical, social, and circumstantial factors. Two core processes elucidate the interactions among these four primary clusters: external perception, encompassing the mechanism through which external stimuli transition into internal events, and self-regulation, which empowers individuals to become autonomous agents capable of exerting control over themselves and their actions. While the model inherently oversimplifies intricate processes, the central question remains: does its pragmatic utility outweigh its limitations, and can it serve as a valuable tool for comprehending human behaviour?

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.

Recently a powerful example of a replicating nano-machine entered our society. In principle, it’s just a normal disease, that one attempts to model with 3 or 4 simple coupled equations with 2 important parameters: a timescale, and a replication factor (the famous R0). Then one tries to guess how changes in society change R0 and perhaps adopt some more or less strong lock-down measures. However, this virus has more “personality” than that. It behaves differently in different persons, and persons behave differently. Presumably, only a few of us infect a lot, while most do not infect so much. This assumption is supported by the observation that couples living together only infect each other with about 15 percent probability, indicating that most infected people are not really infectious. I will discuss this and other aspects of Covid-19 in the perspective of models that describe heterogeneous individuals in a society. In particular, we suggest that limiting superspreading opportunities is a cost-effective strategy to mitigate Covid-19.