neurodudes

Jia, H., Rochefort, N., Chen, X., & Konnerth, A. (2010). Dendritic organization of sensory input to cortical neurons in vivo Nature, 464 (7293), 1307-1312 DOI: 10.1038/nature08947

Consider a a cortical neuron in V1, layer 2/3, whose output shows sharp orientation tuning. What are the orientation tunings of the most important inputs to that neuron? What is the spatial distribution of these inputs in the neuron’s dendritic tree?

(more…)

You’ve probably read by now about the announcement by IBM’s Cognitive Computing group that they had created a “computer system that simulates and emulates the brain’s abilities for sensation, perception, action, interaction and cognition” at the “scale of a cat cortex”.    For their work, the IBM team led by Dharmendra Modha was awarded the ACM Gordon Bell prize, which recognizes “outstanding achievement in high-performance computing”.

A few days later, Henry Markram, leader of the Blue Brain Project at EPFL, sent off an e-mail to IBM CTO Bernard Meyerson harshly criticizing the IBM press release, and cc’ed several reporters. This brought a spate of shock media into the usually placid arena of computational neuroscience reporting, with headlines such as “IBM’s cat-brain sim a ’scam,’ says Swiss boffin: Neuroscientist hairs on end”, and “Meow! IBM cat brain simulation dissed as ‘hoax’ by rival scientist”.  One reporter chose to highlight the rivalry as cat versus rat, using the different animal model choice of the two researchers as a theme.  Since then, additional criticisms from Markram have appeared online.

Find out more after the jump.

(more…)

We had read that Dr. Henry Markram of the Blue Brain project had given a talk at TED (technology, entertainment, design), but the video wasn’t released until this month.  This talk is geared towards a general audience, rather than getting into the specific details of the Blue Brain project, as he has before.  It is engaging and includes many suggestions towards the future of neuroscience and AI.

Watch it online at the TED website.

The journal, Frontiers in Neuroscience, edited by Idan Segev, has made it Volume 3, issue 1.  Launching last year at the Society for Neuroscience conference, its probably the newest Neuroscience-related journal.

I’m a fan of it because it is an open-access journal featuring a “tiered system” and more.  From their website:

The Frontiers Journal Series is not just another journal. It is a new approach to scientific publishing. As service to scientists, it is driven by researchers for researchers but it also serves the interests of the general public. Frontiers disseminates research in a tiered system that begins with original articles submitted to Specialty Journals. It evaluates research truly democratically and objectively based on the reading activity of the scientific communities and the public. And it drives the most outstanding and relevant research up to the next tier journals, the Field Journals.

(more…)

Although it’s a few months old, Larry Abbott has an excellent article in Neuron on the recent (last 20 years) contributions of theoretical neuroscience. (He came by MIT last week to give a talk and that’s when I found out about the article.) It’s a review that is not too long and provides a good overview with both sufficient (though not overwhelming) detail and original perspective. It’s rare to find a short piece that is so informative. (And for a more experimentally-oriented review with an eye toward the future, see Rafael Yuste’s take on the grand challenges.)

Click on for some of my favorite passages from the Abbott piece. (more…)

The Circadian Clock in the Retina Controls Rod-Cone Coupling (Christophe Ribelayga, Yu Cao, and Stuart C. Mangel)

An amazing paper from Neuron demonstrating adaptive (circadian clock-governed) binning in the retina, based on dopamine modulation of gap junction (electrical) synapses between retinal photodetectors. During the day, abundant dopamine release weakens gap junctions coupling rods and cones together so that visual acuity is high. When light is scarce (at night), there is less dopamine and the electrical coupling between rods and cones is increased. This is analogous to on-chip binning in CCD (digital) cameras. Binning increases signal (in light-limited systems, eg. seeing at night) by increasing optical input area and by reducing single element noise (ie. noise at different photoreceptors should be independent) at the cost of resolution. So, the retina activates photoreceptor binning at night to boost low-light signals and deactivates it during the day to increase resolution. The dopamine comes from cells in the interplexiform layer, whose dopamine release is itself governed by melatonin projections.

Also, I never knew that gap junction strengths were directly modifiable. It looks like the D2 receptors are G-protein coupled to PKA, which acts on the gap junctions.

Neurons come in many shapes and sizes. Frequently, the shape of a neuron is characteristic to its type. Several theoretical papers have demonstrated that the shape of a neuron can crucially determine its pattern of activity, independently of other factors (Mainen & Sejnowski, 1996, for example). Several resources on the web such as neuromorpho.org and the Cell Centered Database are dedicated to maintaining repositories of different neuronal shapes (also known as morphologies).

Any computer scientist worth their salt, noticing this trend, is tempted to say: if neuronal shape is so important, maybe we ought to have good data standards to describe it. That’s just what a paper last year did. It surveyed the popular data standards for modeling, primarily in the NEURON and Genesis simulation packages. The result is a data standard called MorphML, which is part of a larger effort called NeuroML.

Neuronal shape is a weird data type for the computer science world, but I think an incredibly important and fundamental one for deeply coping with the complexity of real brain tissue. It seems to me that many areas of neuroscience research could benefit from the construction of more explicit models of the circuits they study.

The field of neuroscience naturally focuses its inquiry into neurons. This approach to understanding the brain by studying its parts has been thought to have a greater potential than that of psychology to understand how the brain works, a comment made by no less than Daniel L. Schacter, chair of Harvard’s Department of Psychology, in his book, The Seven Sins of Memory.

However promising the field has been thus far, even the most accomplished neuroscientists will admit that we still do not understand how the brain really works. I would submit that the current reductionist nature of neuroscience has shed much light on the dynamics of how neurons work, but has to a far lesser degree shed light on how neurons process information. The difference between these two lines of inquiry is important for making progress in understanding how the brain works.
(more…)

What is the right level of biological realism to model neuronal systems in order to understand their computational properties? Some recent papers may help shed some light on the subject. Models of the computational properties of local networks of neurons are starting to come into their own. This year has already seen at least two articles published in experimentalist journals based on the same core of theoretical work.

To bring you up to speed, I need to remind you what is going on in the world of experimental neuroscience.

Experimentalists are now able to record the single-cell activities of a whole population of neurons simultaneously. From Briggman, Abarbanel, Kristan (2006):

By using multi-electrode arrays or optical imaging, investigators can now record from many individual neurons in various parts of nervous systems simultaneously while an animal performs sensory, motor or cognitive tasks. Given the large multidimensional datasets that are now routinely generated, it is often not obvious how to find meaningful results within the data.

This paper goes on to provide a nice overview on mathematical methods that researchers are using to grapple with the challenge of understanding the dynamics of the neural systems they are recording from. They make the case that conceptual progress needs to be made on the interpretation of the data these results yield. How can we understand what computations these neurons are collectively performing?

(Incidentally, this topic is being explored in a conference happening this week at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which, according to one of the conference session chairs, is intended to help shape future directions for the lab. Hopefully there will be webcasts from this conference.)

(more…)

Computational neuroscience is a field where many successful researchers have a strong physics background. So far, the physics approach has provided a strong foundation from which to understand the brain. Recently, however, the influence of a computer science perspective has become more prominent. How can we understand the different perspectives that these disciplines bring to the field? Can we observe the influence of physics methodologies on the modern study of the brain? And if so, what is the consequence of our understanding of the brain through the lens of physics versus the lens of computer science?

One consequence may be the way that computational neuroscience models time in the brain. The study of physics generally conceptualizes time as continuous. Time is something to be plotted on the x-axis of a graph where some other quantity of interest is plotted on the y-axis.

In computer science, on the other hand, real time is rarely conceptualized explicitly. Computer scientists do not plot quantities against time unless they are profiling software for performance purposes, and even then, time is more generally thought of as number of operations. Thinking about operations generally leads computer scientists to think about time as discrete events.

I posit that the distinction between continuous and discrete time creates a foundational difference between the physics approach and the computer science approach to understanding how the brain works. Due to the discrete time conceptualization, computer scientists are more comfortable explaining the function of brain systems in terms of chains of events with definite beginnings and definite ends. Physicists, on the other hand, are more comfortable explaining the brain in terms of dynamics, which do not require definite beginnings or definite ends. Computer scientists care more what the consequence of an event is in the brain, whereas physicists are more concerned with an concise account of the dynamics of what is occurring.

This divide is visible in the distinct modeling approaches of neurons that derive from these two disciplines. The canonical neuronal model contributed by the physics philosophy is the multi-compartmental conductance based (Hodgkin-Huxley like) model. This model is concerned with matching waveforms of current and voltage traces with those that are measured in real neurons. This model helps us to understand how changes of the properties of excitable membranes over time result in changes of neuronal behavior over time. The computational complexity of these models is thought to prevent more than a few hundred neurons modeled in this way from being analyzed concurrently.

Alternatively, the canonical neuronal model contributed by the computer science philosophy is the integrate-and-fire neuron. This model does away with modeling conductances explicitly as functions of time and simply performs a weighted sum of its inputs at each time step. Here a time step is a discrete event whose duration is a parameter of the model. The simplicity of this model allows large networks to be constructed, which are useful for modeling systems of many thousands of neurons.

The physics approach provides insight into the activity of single cells and small networks, whereas the computer science approach provides insight into the activity of large networks. Neither approach is optimal and neither approach provides all the tools that are necessary to truly understand the brain. As these two perspectives are better understood, the field of computational neuroscience can benefit from finding creative ways to merge these two conceptions of time into models that capture both small scale and large scale neuronal activity.

In conclusion, I have demonstrated that what begins as a division between discrete and continuous time amounts to a divide between a bottom-up and a top-down approach. Furthermore, I have shown that understanding the relative contributions of different sciences to computational neuroscience is important for understanding the paradigms that pervade the field.