Explore how microfluidic chips can enhance your imaging experiments by increasing control, throughput, or flexibility. In this remote, personalized workshop, participants will receive expert guidance, support and chips to run tests on their own microscopes.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

Brain Emulation Challenge workshop will tackle cutting-edge topics such as ground-truthing for validation, leveraging artificial datasets generated from virtual brain tissue, and the transformative potential of virtual brain platforms, such as applied to the forthcoming Brain Emulation Challenge.

Founded in 2002, the Brain Connectivity Workshop (BCW) is an annual international meeting for in-depth discussions of all aspects of brain connectivity research. By bringing together experts in computational neuroscience, neuroscience methodology and experimental neuroscience, it aims to improve the understanding of the relationship between anatomical connectivity, brain dynamics and cognitive function. These workshops have a unique format, featuring only short presentations followed by intense discussion. This year’s workshop is co-organised by Wellcome, putting the spotlight on brain connectivity in mental health disorders. We look forward to having you join us for this exciting, thought-provoking and inclusive event.

The Bernstein Student Workshop Series is an initiative of the student members of the Bernstein Network. It provides a unique opportunity to enhance the technical exchange on a peer-to-peer basis. The series is motivated by the idea of bridging the gap between theoretical and experimental neuroscience by bringing together methodological expertise in the network. Unlike conventional workshops, a talented junior scientist will first give a tutorial about a specific theoretical or experimental technique, and then give a talk about their own research to demonstrate how the technique helps to address neuroscience questions. The workshop series is designed to cover a wide range of theoretical and experimental techniques and to elucidate how different techniques can be applied to answer different types of neuroscience questions. Combining the technical tutorial and the research talk, the workshop series aims to promote knowledge sharing in the community and enhance in-depth discussions among students from diverse backgrounds.

The Bernstein Student Workshop Series is an initiative of the student members of the Bernstein Network. It provides a unique opportunity to enhance the technical exchange on a peer-to-peer basis. The series is motivated by the idea of bridging the gap between theoretical and experimental neuroscience by bringing together methodological expertise in the network. Unlike conventional workshops, a talented junior scientist will first give a tutorial about a specific theoretical or experimental technique, and then give a talk about their own research to demonstrate how the technique helps to address neuroscience questions. The workshop series is designed to cover a wide range of theoretical and experimental techniques and to elucidate how different techniques can be applied to answer different types of neuroscience questions. Combining the technical tutorial and the research talk, the workshop series aims to promote knowledge sharing in the community and enhance in-depth discussions among students from diverse backgrounds.

The Bernstein Student Workshop Series is an initiative of the student members of the Bernstein Network. It provides a unique opportunity to enhance the technical exchange on a peer-to-peer basis. The series is motivated by the idea of bridging the gap between theoretical and experimental neuroscience by bringing together methodological expertise in the network. Unlike conventional workshops, a talented junior scientist will first give a tutorial about a specific theoretical or experimental technique, and then give a talk about their own research to demonstrate how the technique helps to address neuroscience questions. The workshop series is designed to cover a wide range of theoretical and experimental techniques and to elucidate how different techniques can be applied to answer different types of neuroscience questions. Combining the technical tutorial and the research talk, the workshop series aims to promote knowledge sharing in the community and enhance in-depth discussions among students from diverse backgrounds.

Last year’s SNUFA workshop report concluded “Moving toward neuron numbers comparable with biology and applying these networks to real-world data-sets will require the development of novel algorithms, software libraries, and dedicated hardware accelerators that perform well with the specifics of spiking neural networks” [1]. Taking inspiration from machine learning libraries — where techniques such as parallel batch training minimise latency and maximise GPU occupancy — as well as our previous research on efficiently simulating SNNs on GPUs for computational neuroscience [2,3], we are extending our GeNN SNN simulator to pursue this vision. To explore GeNN’s potential, we use the eProp learning rule [4] — which approximates RTRL — to train SNN classifiers on the Spiking Heidelberg Digits and the Spiking Sequential MNIST datasets. We find that the performance of these classifiers is comparable to those trained using BPTT [5] and verify that the theoretical advantages of neuron models with adaptation dynamics [5] translate to improved classification performance. We then measured execution times and found that training an SNN classifier using GeNN and eProp becomes faster than SpyTorch and BPTT after less than 685 timesteps and much larger models can be trained on the same GPU when using GeNN. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our implementation of parallel batch training improves training performance by over 4⨉ and enables near-perfect scaling across multiple GPUs. Finally, we show that performing inference using a recurrent SNN using GeNN uses less energy and has lower latency than a comparable LSTM simulated with TensorFlow [6].

Like last year this online workshop brings together researchers in the field to present their work and discuss ways of translating these findings into a better understanding of neural circuits. Topics include artificial and biologically plausible learning algorithms and the dissection of trained spiking circuits toward understanding neural processing. We have a manageable number of talks with ample time for discussions. This year’s executive committee comprises Chiara Bartolozzi, Sander Bohté, Dan Goodman, and Friedemann Zenke.

In this workshop you'll learn the fundamentals of PyTorch using an incremental, from-first-principles approach. We'll start with tensors, autograd, and the dynamic computation graph, and then move on to developing and training a simple model using PyTorch's model classes, datasets, data loaders, optimizers, and more. You should be comfortable using Python, Jupyter notebooks, Google Colab, Numpy and, preferably, object oriented programming.

Evolution has shaped neural circuits in a very specific manner, slowly and aimlessly incorporating computational innovations that increased the chances to survive and reproduce of the newly born species. The discoveries done by the Evolutionary Developmental (Evo-Devo) biology field during the last decades have been crucial for our understanding of the gradual emergence of such innovations. In turn, Computational Neuroscience practitioners modeling the brain are becoming increasingly aware of the need to build models that incorporate these innovations to replicate the computational strategies used by the brain to solve a given task. The goal of this workshop is to bring together experts from Systems and Computational Neuroscience, Machine Learning and the Evo-Devo field to discuss if and how knowing the evolutionary history of neural circuits can help us understand the way the brain works, as well as the relative importance of learned VS innate neural mechanisms.

Traditionally, the term dynamics means changes in a system evolving over time. However, in the brain action potentials propagate along axons to induce postsynaptic currents with different delays at many sites simultaneously. This fundamental computational mechanism evolves spatially to engage the neuron populations involved in brain functions. To identify and understand the spatial processing in brains, this workshop will focus on the spatial principles of brain dynamics that determine how action potentials and membrane currents propagate in the networks of neurons that brains are made of. We will focus on non-artificial dynamics, which excludes in vitro dynamics, interference, electrical and optogenetic stimulations of brains in vivo. Recent non-artificial studies of spatial brain dynamics can actually explain how sensory, motor and internal brain functions evolve. The purpose of this workshop is to discuss these recent results and identify common principles of spatial brain dynamics.

Traditionally, the term dynamics means changes in a system evolving over time. However, in the brain action potentials propagate along axons to induce postsynaptic currents with different delays at many sites simultaneously. This fundamental computational mechanism evolves spatially to engage the neuron populations involved in brain functions. To identify and understand the spatial processing in brains, this workshop will focus on the spatial principles of brain dynamics that determine how action potentials and membrane currents propagate in the networks of neurons that brains are made of. We will focus on non-artificial dynamics, which excludes in vitro dynamics, interference, electrical and optogenetic stimulations of brains in vivo. Recent non-artificial studies of spatial brain dynamics can actually explain how sensory, motor and internal brain functions evolve. The purpose of this workshop is to discuss these recent results and identify common principles of spatial brain dynamics.

Traditionally, the term dynamics means changes in a system evolving over time. However, in the brain action potentials propagate along axons to induce postsynaptic currents with different delays at many sites simultaneously. This fundamental computational mechanism evolves spatially to engage the neuron populations involved in brain functions. To identify and understand the spatial processing in brains, this workshop will focus on the spatial principles of brain dynamics that determine how action potentials and membrane currents propagate in the networks of neurons that brains are made of. We will focus on non-artificial dynamics, which excludes in vitro dynamics, interference, electrical and optogenetic stimulations of brains in vivo. Recent non-artificial studies of spatial brain dynamics can actually explain how sensory, motor and internal brain functions evolve. The purpose of this workshop is to discuss these recent results and identify common principles of spatial brain dynamics.

One of the major roadblocks to medical progress in the field of neurodegeneration is the absence of animal models that fully recapitulate features of the human diseases. Unprecedented opportunities to tackle this challenge are emerging e.g. from genome engineering and stem cell technologies, and there are intense efforts to develop models with a high translational value. Simultaneously, single-cell, multi-omics and optogenetics technologies now allow longitudinal, molecular and functional analysis of human disease processes in these models at high resolution. During this workshop, 12 experts will present recent progress in the field and discuss: - What are the most advanced disease models available to date? - Which aspects of the human disease do these accurately models, which ones do they fail to replicate? - How should models be validated? Against which reference, which standards? - What are currently the best methods to analyse these models? - What is the field still missing in terms of modelling, and of technologies to analyse disease models? CURE-ND stands for 'Catalysing a United Response in Europe to Neurodegenerative Diseases'. It is a new alliance between the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), the Paris Brain Institute (ICM), Mission Lucidity (ML, a partnership between imec, KU Leuven, UZ Leuven and VIB in Belgium) and the UK Dementia Research Institute (UK DRI). Together, these partners embrace a joint effort to accelerate the pace of scientific discovery and nurture breakthroughs in the field of neurodegenerative diseases. This Neurotechnology Workshop is the first in a series of joint events aiming at exchanging expertise, promoting scientific collaboration and building a strong community of neurodegeneration researchers in Europe and beyond.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is awash in data, including daily, spatially-resolved COVID case data, virus sequence data, patients `omics data, and mobility data. Journals are now also awash in studies that make use of quantitative modeling approaches to gain insight into the geographic spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its temporal dynamics, as well as studies that predict the impact of control strategies on SARS-CoV-2 circulation. Some, but by no means all, of these studies are informed by the massive amounts of available data. Some, but by no means all, of these studies have been useful — in that their predictions revealed something beyond simple back of the envelope calculations. To summarize some of these findings, in this symposium, we will address questions such as: What do we want from models of disease spread? What can and should be predicted? Which data are the most useful for predictions? When do we need mechanistic models? What have we learned about how to model disease spread from unmet and/or conflicting predictions? The workshop speakers will explore these questions from different perspectives on what data need to be considered and how models can be evaluated. As at other TMLS workshops, each speaker will deliver a 10-minute talk with ample time set aside for moderated questions/discussion. We expect the talks to be provocative and bold, while respecting different perspectives.

When was the last time you ran into a giant? Chances are never. Almost 100 years ago, JBS Haldane posed an outwardly simple yet complex question – what is the most optimal size (for a biological system)? The living world around us contains a huge diversity of organisms, each with its own characteristic size. Even the size of subcellular organelles is tightly controlled. In absence of physical rulers, how do cells and organisms truly “know” how large is large enough? What are the mechanisms in place to enforce size control? Many of these questions have motivated generations of scientists to look for physical principles underlying size control in biological systems. In the next edition of Emory's Theory and Modeling of Living Systems (TMLS) workshop series, our panel of speakers will take a close look at these questions, across the entire scale - from the molecular, all the way to the ecosystem.

This open colloquia session is part of the special workshop entitled "Obesity at the Interface of Neuroscience and Physiology II". Abstract: Proopiomelanocortin (POMC)- and agouti related peptide (AgRP)-expressing neurons in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (ARH) are critical regulators of food intake and energy homeostasis. They rapidly integrate the energy state of the organism through sensing fuel availability via hormones, nutrient components and even rapidly upon sensory food perception. Importantly, they not only regulate feeding responses, but numerous autonomic responses including glucose and lipid metabolism, inflammation and blood pressure. More recently, we could demonstrate that sensory food cue-dependent regulation of POMC neurons primes the hepatic endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress response to prime liver metabolism for the postpramndial state. The presentation will focus on the regulation of these neurons in control of integrative physiology, the identification of distinct neuronal circuitries targeted by these cells and finally on the broad range implications resulting from dysregulation of these circuits as a consequence of altered maternal metabolism.

Many of us came to biology from physics. There we have been trained on such classic examples as muon g-2, where experimental data and theoretical predictions agree to many significant digits. Now, working in biology, we routinely hear that it is messy, most details matter, and that the best hope for theory in biology is to be semi-qualitative, predict general trends, and to forgo the hope of ever making quantitative predictions with the precision that we are used to in physics. Colloquially, we should be satisfied even if data and models differ so much that plotting them on the same plot makes little sense. However, some of us won’t be satisfied by this. So can we take theory in biology seriously and predict experimental outcomes within (small) error bars? Certainly, we won’t be able to predict everything, but this is never required, even in traditional physics. But we should be able to choose some features of data that are nontrivial and interesting, and focus on them. We also should be able to find different classes of models --- maybe even null models --- that match biology better, and thus allow for a better agreement. It is even possible that large-dimensional datasets of modern high-throughput experiments, and the ensuing “more is different” statistical physics style models will make quantitative, precise theory easier. To explore the role of quantitative theory in biology, in this workshop, eight speakers will address some of the following general questions based on their specific work in different corners of biology: Which features of biological data are predictable? Which types of models are best suited to making quantitative predictions in different fields? Should theorists interested in quantitative predictions focus on different questions, not typically asked by biologists? Do large, multidimensional datasets make theories (and which theories?) more or less likely to succeed? This will be an unapologetically theoretical physics workshop — we won’t focus on a specific subfield of biology, but will explore these questions across the fields, hoping that the underlying theoretical frameworks will help us find the missing connections.

This is a two-day workshop. Sign up and see titles and abstracts on website.

The “soft, active, and living matter” community has grown tremendously in recent years, conducting exciting research at the interface between soft matter and biological systems. But are all living systems also soft matter systems? Do the ideas of function (or purpose) in biological systems require us to introduce deep new ideas into the framework of soft matter theories? Does the (often) qualitatively different character of data in biological experiments require us to change the types of experiments we conduct and the goals of our theoretical treatments? Eight speakers will anchor the workshop, exploring these questions across a range of biological system scales. Each speaker will deliver a 10-minute talk with another 10 minutes set aside for moderated questions/discussion. We expect the talks to be broad, bold, and provocative, discussing both the nature of the theoretical tools and experimental techniques we have at present and also those we think we will ultimately need to answer deep questions at the interface of soft matter and biology.

There has been a surge of publications on using machine learning (ML) on experimental data from physical systems: social, biological, statistical, and quantum. However, can these methods discover fundamentally new physics? It can be that their biggest impact is in better data preprocessing, while inferring new physics is unrealistic without specifically adapting the learning machine to find what we are looking for — that is, without the “intuition” — and hence without having a good a priori guess about what we will find. Is machine learning a useful tool for physics discovery? Which minimal knowledge should we endow the machines with to make them useful in such tasks? How do we do this? Eight speakers below will anchor the workshop, exploring these questions in contexts of diverse systems (from quantum to biological), and from general theoretical advances to specific applications. Each speaker will deliver a 10 min talk with another 10 minutes set aside for moderated questions/discussion. We expect the talks to be broad, bold, and provocative, discussing where the field is heading, and what is needed to get us there.

We will organize the workshop around one question: “Now that we can track (most) everything, what can we do with the data?” Given the recent dramatic advances in technology, we now have behavioral data sets with orders of magnitude more accuracy, dimensionality, diversity, and size than we had even a few years ago. That being said, there is still little agreement as to what theoretical frameworks can inform our understanding of these data sets and suggest new experiments we can perform. We hope that after this workshop we’ll see a variety of new ideas and perhaps gain some inspiration. We have invited eight speakers, each studying different systems, scales, and topics, to provide 10 minute presentations focused on the above question, with another 10 minutes set aside for questions/discussions (moderated by the two of us). Although we naturally expect speakers to include aspects of their own work, we have encouraged all of them to think broadly and provocatively. We are also hoping to organize some breakout sessions after the talks so that we can have some more expanded discussions about topics arising during the meeting.

MRI data quality is crucial to the result. This workshop talks some aspects we need to pay attention during the data acquisition, including FoV/slice brain coverage, synchronization between image acquisition and stimulus presentation, instruction to participant, real time quality monitoring, the usage of physiological data. Prior to the meeting, we are collecting questions for Xiangrui on anything related to mri protocol/parameters: https://www.tricider.com/admin/2YW93TsWZJ3/2DBkJUoE5Ot