To rule out the relationship between cytoarchitecture and function, one needs to be sure they are trying to map correct functions. What makes people confident about it?
I want to see more evo-devo in brain-inspired AI
Could it be that the cerebellum is a perfect area to study the duality of prediction and control?
I don’t think AI’s success in coding will automatically translate to other fields. That level of performance only works where the output is as easily verifiable as code; and not many domains fit that bill. 2/2
After several years of work, my lab is starting to put out our first papers on learning in a unicellular organism (Stentor coeruleus).
Here we show evidence for a form of associative learning in Stentor:
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
This summer my lab's journal club somewhat unintentionally ended up reading papers on a theme of "more naturalistic computational neuroscience". I figured I'd share the list of papers here 🧵:
On a deeper level: the purpose of arealization is (or should be) be to help understand function; so function has no place on the list of area criteria.
If the other criteria disagree with function, that just makes them a poor guide to arealization.
New paper alert! 🚨
We found that the brain's compass is remarkably stable at two scales
1️⃣ the system maintains its internal organization for weeks
2️⃣ It "remembers" its orientation for weeks, even after a single visit
This may be key to how the brain aligns its other maps.
Paper: rdcu.be/e3waP