Researchers model how neurons work together

Are these people reinventing our wheel?

I’ll try to follow this with the Neuron article.

Ted

From the Human Ethology listserv:

Researchers model how neurons work together
June 18th, 2014 in Neuroscience

Enlarge
Neurons. Image credit: Denis Burdakov

A newly-developed, highly accurate representation of the way in which neurons behave when performing movements such as reaching could not only enhance understanding of the complex dynamics at work in the brain, but aid in the development of robotic limbs which are capable of more complex and natural movements.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge, working in collaboration with the University of Oxford and the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), have developed a new model of a neural network, offering a novel theory of how neurons work together when performing complex movements. The results are published in the18 June edition of the journal Neuron.

While an action such as reaching for a cup of coffee may seem straightforward, the millions of neurons in the brain’s motor cortex must work together to prepare and execute the movement before the coffee ever reaches our lips. When reaching for the much-needed cup of coffee, the millions of neurons in the brain’s motor cortex spring into action, sending a series of signals from the brain to the hand. These signals are transmitted across synapses - the junctions between neurons.

Determining exactly how the neurons work together to execute these movements is difficult, however. The new theory was inspired by recent experiments carried out at Stanford University, which had uncovered some key aspects of the signals that neurons emit before, during and after the movement. “There is a remarkable synergy in the activity recorded simultaneously in hundreds of neurons,” said Dr Guillaume Hennequin of the University’s Department of Engineering, who led the research. “In contrast, previous models of cortical circuit dynamics predict a lot of redundancy, and therefore poorly explain what happens in the motor cortex during movements.”

Better models of how neurons behave will not only aid in our understanding of the brain, but could also be used to design prosthetic limbs controlled via electrodes implanted in the brain. “Our theory could provide a more accurate guess of how neurons would want to signal both movement intention and execution to the robotic limb,” said Dr Hennequin.

The behaviour of neurons in the motor cortex can be likened to a mousetrap or a spring-loaded box, in which the springs are waiting to be released and are let go once the lid is opened or the mouse takes the bait. As we plan a movement, the ‘neural springs’ are progressively flexed and compressed. When released, they orchestrate a series of neural activity bursts, all of which takes place in the blink of an eye.

The signals transmitted by the synapses in the motor cortex during complex movements can be either excitatory or inhibitory, which are in essence mirror reflections of each other. The signals cancel each other out for the most part, leaving occasional bursts of activity.

Using control theory, a branch of mathematics well-suited to the study of complex interacting systems such as the brain, the researchers devised a model of neural behaviour which achieves a balance between the excitatory and inhibitory synaptic signals. The model can accurately reproduce a range of multidimensional movement patterns.

The researchers found that neurons in the motor cortex might not be wired together with nearly as much randomness as had been previously thought. “Our model shows that the inhibitory synapses might be tuned to stabilise the dynamics of these brain networks,” said Dr Hennequin. “We think that accurate models like these can really aid in the understanding of the incredibly complex dynamics at work in the human brain.”

Future directions for the research include building a more realistic, ‘closed-loop’ model of movement generation in which feedback from the limbs is actively used by the brain to correct for small errors in movement execution. This will expose the new theory to the more thorough scrutiny of physiological and behavioural validation, potentially leading to a more complete mechanistic understanding of complex movements.

More information: “Optimal Control of Transient Dynamics in Balanced Networks Supports Generation of Complex Movements” Neuron, June 18, 2014.

Provided by University of Cambridge

“Researchers model how neurons work together.” June 18th, 2014. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-06-neurons.html

Repl****y

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.22.0930)]

···

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Are these people reinventing our wheel?

RM: You find very interesting articles, Ted! But I can reassure you that these people are not reinventing our wheel; they are just redecorating the same old causal wheel that has been the basis of behavioral science since forever. The “tell” is this little sentence:

Future directions for the research include building a more realistic, ‘closed-loop’ model of movement generation in which feedback from the limbs is actively used by the brain to correct for small errors in movement execution. (emphasis mine; RM)

Of course this is a quote from the news article, not from the researchers. But I would guess that the researchers think the same way: that sensory feedback is used to correct for errors. These researchers won’t be “reinventing” the PCT approach to movement control until they understand that sensory feedback is not used; is is controlled. The difference is made clear by Adam Matic’s robot demo which is architected from the start as a system that is organized around the control of perceptual “feedback”.

When you re-conceptualize behavior (movement) as controlled input rather than controlled output then the search for the solution to the question of how organisms produce controlled movements becomes one of figuring out what perceptual variables are controlled (and how they are controlled) rather than one of figuring out how to “trim up” the movements themselves.

Best regards

Rick


Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

From Fred Nickols (2014.06.22.1303 EDT)

Clearly put, Rick.

By the way, I obtained a copy of Bayliss’ Living Control Systems. Aside from the title another thing I immediately noticed was his use of “disturbances.” I fear his book is way too technical for me but I will do some wading before giving up. Baylis was a Brit so Warren might know of him and his work.

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

···

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Are these people reinventing our wheel?

RM: You find very interesting articles, Ted! But I can reassure you that these people are not reinventing our wheel; they are just redecorating the same old causal wheel that has been the basis of behavioral science since forever. The “tell” is this little sentence:

Future directions for the research include building a more realistic, ‘closed-loop’ model of movement generation in which feedback from the limbs is actively used by the brain to correct for small errors in movement execution. (emphasis mine; RM)

Of course this is a quote from the news article, not from the researchers. But I would guess that the researchers think the same way: that sensory feedback is used to correct for errors. These researchers won’t be “reinventing” the PCT approach to movement control until they understand that sensory feedback is not used; is is controlled. The difference is made clear by Adam Matic’s robot demo which is architected from the start as a system that is organized around the control of perceptual “feedback”.

When you re-conceptualize behavior (movement) as controlled input rather than controlled output then the search for the solution to the question of how organisms produce controlled movements becomes one of figuring out what perceptual variables are controlled (and how they are controlled) rather than one of figuring out how to “trim up” the movements themselves.

Best regards

Rick


Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

Hi Fred, I’m afraid I don’t, but tell us how it shapes up to analysis!

Warren

···

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Are these people reinventing our wheel?

RM: You find very interesting articles, Ted! But I can reassure you that these people are not reinventing our wheel; they are just redecorating the same old causal wheel that has been the basis of behavioral science since forever. The “tell” is this little sentence:

Future directions for the research include building a more realistic, ‘closed-loop’ model of movement generation in which feedback from the limbs is actively used by the brain to correct for small errors in movement execution. (emphasis mine; RM)

Of course this is a quote from the news article, not from the researchers. But I would guess that the researchers think the same way: that sensory feedback is used to correct for errors. These researchers won’t be “reinventing” the PCT approach to movement control until they understand that sensory feedback is not used; is is controlled. The difference is made clear by Adam Matic’s robot demo which is architected from the start as a system that is organized around the control of perceptual “feedback”.

When you re-conceptualize behavior (movement) as controlled input rather than controlled output then the search for the solution to the question of how organisms produce controlled movements becomes one of figuring out what perceptual variables are controlled (and how they are controlled) rather than one of figuring out how to “trim up” the movements themselves.

Best regards

Rick


Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.22.13.49]

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.22.0930)]

I would say that feedback is not controlled. Perception is

controlled, and feedback is used in controlling it. However,
the wording suggests that the writers are thinking of controlling
output, not input. If so, they aren’t reinventing the PCT wheel.
Without seeing the paper, we can’t say whether the researchers think
the same way.

Martin
···

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Ted
Cloak tcloak@unm.edu
wrote:

                TC: Are these people reinventing

our wheel?

          RM: You find very interesting articles, Ted! But I can

reassure you that these people are not reinventing our
wheel; they are just redecorating the same old causal
wheel that has been the basis of behavioral science since
forever. The “tell” is this little sentence:

                          Future

directions for the research include building a more
realistic, ‘closed-loop’ model of movement generation in
which ** feedback from the limbs is actively used by
the brain to correct for small errors in movement
execution.** (emphasis mine; RM)

      Of course this is a quote from the news article, not from the

researchers. But I would guess that the researchers think the
same way: that sensory feedback is used to correct
for errors. These researchers won’t be “reinventing” the PCT
approach to movement control until they understand that
sensory feedback is not used; is is controlled.

[Ted Cloak 2014.06.22.1300MST]

[From Martin Taylor 2014.06.22.13.49]

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.22.0930)]

TC: Are these people reinventing our wheel?

RM: You find very interesting articles, Ted! But I can reassure you that these people are not reinventing our wheel; they are just redecorating the same old causal wheel that has been the basis of behavioral science since forever. The “tell” is this little sentence:

Future directions for the research include building a more realistic, ‘closed-loop’ model of movement generation in which feedback from the limbs is actively used by the brain to correct for small errors in movement execution. (emphasis mine; RM)

Of course this is a quote from the news article, not from the researchers. But I would guess that the researchers think the same way: that sensory feedback is used to correct for errors. These researchers won’t be “reinventing” the PCT approach to movement control until they understand that sensory feedback is not used; is is controlled.

I would say that feedback is not controlled. Perception is controlled, and feedback is used in controlling it. However, the wording suggests that the writers are thinking of controlling output, not input. If so, they aren’t reinventing the PCT wheel. Without seeing the paper, we can’t say whether the researchers think the same way.

Martin

TC: Okay, I’ve attached the article itself. Just got it.

Ted

Optimal_Control_of_Transient_Dynamics.pdf (6.5 MB)

···

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.22.1320)]

···

Ted Cloak (2014.06.22.1300MST)–

TC: Okay, I’ve attached the article itself. Just got it.

RM: Thanks Ted. I can’t make heads or tails of it. Maybe someone else can.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com