* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Optional extra slides on the Binding Problem
Neuroanatomy wikipedia , lookup
Neuromuscular junction wikipedia , lookup
Neural oscillation wikipedia , lookup
Single-unit recording wikipedia , lookup
Process tracing wikipedia , lookup
Signal transduction wikipedia , lookup
Types of artificial neural networks wikipedia , lookup
Neuropsychopharmacology wikipedia , lookup
Neural modeling fields wikipedia , lookup
Long-term potentiation wikipedia , lookup
Biological neuron model wikipedia , lookup
Nonsynaptic plasticity wikipedia , lookup
Long-term depression wikipedia , lookup
Neurotransmitter wikipedia , lookup
Recurrent neural network wikipedia , lookup
Neural engineering wikipedia , lookup
Optogenetics wikipedia , lookup
Visual selective attention in dementia wikipedia , lookup
Chemical synapse wikipedia , lookup
Synaptogenesis wikipedia , lookup
Time perception wikipedia , lookup
Activity-dependent plasticity wikipedia , lookup
Synaptic gating wikipedia , lookup
Nervous system network models wikipedia , lookup
Development of the nervous system wikipedia , lookup
Stimulus (physiology) wikipedia , lookup
Clinical neurochemistry wikipedia , lookup
Feature detection (nervous system) wikipedia , lookup
Channelrhodopsin wikipedia , lookup
Efficient coding hypothesis wikipedia , lookup
Metastability in the brain wikipedia , lookup
Neural coding wikipedia , lookup
The Binding Problem Red Circle & Green Square or Green Circle and Red Square? Binding likely takes place across small and large anatomical scales. Static vs. Dynamic Binding Static binding => conjunctive representation; collections of visual elements and properties map onto individual units of the representation, one unit per conjunction Hummel (2003) Potential Solution 1: Distributive Encoding of Conjunctions: no need to have all possible conjunctions separately represented. Problem: Ambiguity solved at one level, but still present at another => Still a need for Grandmother cells? Potential Solution 2: Dynamic Binding: separate properties represented by separate units, conjunctions occur via some changing tag external to the units themselves. Hummel (2003) Neural synchrony: things that fire together go together. Engels et al. (1992) Trujillo et al. (2002) Static vs. Dynamic Binding often equated with…. Rate Coding: information encoding via firing rates Vs. Fries et al., 2001 Temporal Coding: information encoding via timing relationships McNaughton, 2001 Problems with the Synchrony Hypothesis 1) Observed synchrony may be an epiphenomenon of neural firings. Neurons can fire in synchrony by random chance (Shadlen and Movshon, 1999). Synchrony might simply reflect the bidirectional connectivity of the cortex (O’Reilly and Munakata, 2000; Lamme, 2001). Counter-evidence against epiphenomenal view: impaired odor detection in bees with a reduction in synchrony of olfactory cells while preserving high firing rates (Laurent et al., 1997). 2) Further processing of bound information requires novel and unknown dynamic mechanisms. McNaughton, 2001 Maybe temporal Coding might provide a dynamic mechanism for processing? More research is needed….. One problem: timing codes highly sensitive to noise (O’Reilly and Munakata, 2000; Mazurek and Shadlen, 2000). Attention and Binding Sometime binding fails….. “illusory conjunctions”: human subjects presented with an may perceive incorrect feature conjunctions when attention is divided over different objects and features. (Triesman, 1999; Wolfe and Cave, 1999). Attention may be the “tag” that binds features together. Neural Synchrony and Attention Human electrophysiological evidence: Greater fronto-central gamma-range spectral power to attended than unattended auditory stimuli. Tiitinen, Sinkkonen, Reinikainen, Alho, Lavikainen, and Naatanen (1993) Primate electrophysiological evidence: Synchronization of pre-synaptic neuron inputs upon postsynaptic cells is increased with increased attention. (Fries, Reynolds, Rorie, and Desimone, 2001). This synchronization may boost temporal and spatial summation of EPSPs and IPSPs, and thus increase the chance to depolarize post-synaptic cell. Conjecture: McNaughton,2001 Neurons within the loci of attention may selectively gate signals depending upon whether input cells are synchronized. IMHO: Binding by convergence (Singer, 1999) binding occurs via convergence of signals among neuron in feedforward, feedback, and lateral connections. Information is irreversibly (i.e. nonlinearly) convolved (“blended” or transformed) at each synaptic step, i.e. nonlinear transformation. Attention findings: Synchrony facilitates communication, => high synchrony can be a marker of good communication Synchrony might also contribute to synaptic plasticity : Dynamic interplay between LTD and LTP could work to create new connections in response to a stimulus that are reset to near initial conditions when the stimulus is removed (e.g. Loebel and Tsyodyks, 2002). Ngezahayo, Schachner, and Artola (2000) Speculation: such dynamic LTD/LTP interplay may resemble phenomena of “metaplasticity”: changes in the ability to induce subsequent LTD/LTP.