Domains featuring this topic
Explore the domains where this topic appears.
Brain-Wide Compositionality and Learning Dynamics in Biological Agents
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.
Through the bottleneck: my adventures with the 'Tishby program'
One of Tali's cherished goals was to transform biology into physics. In his view, biologists were far too enamored by the details of the specific models they studied, losing sight of the big principles that may govern the behavior of these models. One such big principle that he suggested was the 'information bottleneck (IB) principle'. The iIB principle is an information-theoretical approach for extracting the relevant information that one random variable carries about another. Tali applied the IB principle to numerous problems in biology, gaining important insights in the process. Here I will describe two applications of the IB principle to neurobiological data. The first is the formalization of the notion of surprise that allowed us to rigorously estimate the memory duration and content of neuronal responses in auditory cortex, and the second is an application to behavior, allowing us to estimate 'optimal policies under information constraints' that shed interesting light on rat behavior.
The Impact of Racism-related Stress on Neurobiological Systems in Black Americans”
Black Americans experience diverse racism-related stressors throughout the lifespan. Disproportionately high trauma exposure, economic disadvantage, explicit racism and inequitable treatment are stressors faced by many Black Americans. These experiences have a cumulative negative impact on psychological and physical health. However, little is understood about how experiences of racism, such as discrimination, can mediate health outcomes via their effects on neurobiology. I will present clinical, behavioral, physiological and neurobiological data from Black American participants in the Grady Trauma Project, a longstanding study of trauma conducted in inner-city Atlanta. These data will be discussed in the context of both risk and resilience/adaptation perspectives. Finally, recommendations for future clinical neuroscience research and targets for intervention in marginalized populations will be discussed.
Biology is “messy”. So how can we take theory in biology seriously and plot predictions and experiments on the same axes?
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.