Neuroscience and artificial intelligence (AI) share a long history of collaboration. Advances in neuroscience, alongside huge leaps in computer processing power over the last few decades, have given
rise to a new generation of in silico neural networks inspired by the architecture of the brain.
These AI systems are now capable of many of the advanced perceptual and cognitive abilities of
biological systems, including object recognition and decision making. Moreover, AI is now increasingly
being employed as a tool for neuroscience research and is transforming our understanding of brain
functions. In particular, deep learning has been used to model how convolutional layers and recurrent
connections in the brain’s cerebral cortex control important functions, including visual processing,
memory, and motor control. Excitingly, the use of neuroscience-inspired AI also holds great promise for
understanding how changes in brain networks result in psychopathologies, and could even be utilized
in treatment regimes. Here we discuss recent advancements in four areas in which the relationship
between neuroscience and AI has led to major advancements in the field; (1) AI models of working
memory, (2) AI visual processing, (3) AI analysis of big neuroscience datasets, and (4) computational
psychiatry.
Classically, our definition of intelligence has largely been based
upon the capabilities of advanced biological entities, most notably
humans. Accordingly, research into artificial intelligence (AI) has
primarily focused on the creation of machines that can perceive,
learn, and reason, with the overarching objective of creating
an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system that can emulate
human intelligence, so called Turing-powerful systems. Considering this aim, it is not surprising that scientists, mathematicians,
and philosophers working on AI have taken inspiration from the
mechanistic, structural, and functional properties of the brain.
∗ Correspondence to: Laboratory for Advanced Brain Functions, Institute
for Protein Research, Osaka University, 3-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-
0871, Japan.
E-mail address: hikida@protein.osaka-u.ac.jp (T. Hikida).
Since at least the 1950s, attempts have been made to artificially model the information processing mechanisms of neurons. This primarily began with the development of perceptrons
(Rosenblatt, 1958), a highly reductionist model of neuronal signaling, in which an individual node receiving weighted inputs
could produce a binary output if the summation of inputs reached
a threshold. Coinciding with the emergence of the cognitive revolution in the 50s and 60s, and extending until at least the 90s,
there was initially much pushback against the development of
artificial neural networks within the AI and cognitive science
communities (Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1988; Mandler, 2002; Minsky &
Papert, 1969). However, by the late 1980s, the development of
multilayer neural networks and the popularization of backpropagation had solved many of the limitations of early perceptrons,
including their inability to solve non-linear classification problems such as learning a simple boolean XOR function (Rumelhart,
Hinton, & Williams, 1986). Neural networks were now able to
dynamically modify their own connections by calculating error
functions of the network and communicating them back through
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2021.09.018
0893-6080/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/).
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
the constituent layers, giving rise to a new generation of AI capable of intelligent skills including image and speech recognition
(Bengio, 1993; LeCun, Bengio, & Hinton, 2015; LeCun et al., 1989).
To date, backpropagation is still commonly used to train deep
neural networks (Lillicrap, Santoro, Marris, Akerman, & Hinton,
2020; Richards et al., 2019), and has been combined with reinforcement learning methods to create advanced learning systems
capable of matching or outperforming humans in strategy-based
games including Chess (Silver et al., 2018), Go (Silver et al., 2016,
2018), poker (Moravčík et al., 2017), and StarCraft II (Vinyals et al.,
2019).
Despite the neuroscience-inspired origins of AI, the biological
plausibility of modern AI is questionable. Indeed, there is little
evidence that backpropagation of error underlies the modification of synaptic connections between neurons (Crick, 1989;
Grossberg, 1987); although recent theories have suggested that
an approximation of backpropagation may exist in the brain
(Lillicrap et al., 2020; Whittington & Bogacz, 2019). While creating brain-like systems is clearly not necessary to achieve all
goals of AI, as evidenced by the above-described accomplishments, a major advantage of biologically plausible AI is its usefulness for understanding and modeling information processing
in the brain. Additionally, brain mechanisms can be thought of
as an evolutionarily-validated template for intelligence, honed
over millions of years for adaptability, speed, and energy efficiency. As such, increased integration of brain-inspired mechanisms may help to further improve the capabilities and efficiency
of AI. These ideas have led to continued interest in the creation
of neuroscience-inspired AI, and have further strengthened the
partnership between AI and neuroscience research fields. In the
last decade, several biologically plausible alternatives to backpropagation have been suggested, including predictive coding
(Bastos et al., 2012; Millidge, Tschantz, & Buckley, 2020), feedback alignment (Lillicrap, Cownden, Tweed, & Akerman, 2016),
equilibrium propagation (Scellier & Bengio, 2017), Hebbian-like
learning rules (Krotov & Hopfield, 2019; Miconi, 2017), and zerodivergence inference learning (Salvatori, Song, Lukasiewicz, Bogacz, & Xu, 2021). Similarly, other recent efforts to bridge the gap
between artificial and biological neural networks have led to the
development of spiking neural networks capable of approximating stochastic potential-based communication between neurons
(Pfeiffer & Pfeil, 2018), as well as attention-like mechanisms
including transformer architectures (Vaswani et al., 2017).
The beneficial relationship between AI and neuroscience is
reciprocal, and AI is now rapidly becoming an invaluable tool
in neuroscience research. AI models designed to perform
intelligence-based tasks are providing novel hypotheses for how
the same processes are controlled within the brain. For example,
work on distributional reinforcement learning in AI has recently
resulted in the proposal of a new theory of dopaminergic signaling of probabilistic distributions (Dabney et al., 2020). Similarly,
goal-driven deep learning models of visual processing have been
used to estimate the organizational properties of the brain’s
visual system and accurately predict patterns of neural activity
(Yamins & DiCarlo, 2016). Additionally, advances in deep learning
algorithms and the processing power of computers now allow for
high-throughput analysis of large-scale datasets, including that
of whole-brain imaging in animals and humans, expediting the
progress of neuroscience research (Thomas, Heekeren, Müller, &
Samek, 2019; Todorov et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019). Deep learning
models trained to decode neural imaging data can create accurate
predictions of decision-making, action selection, and behavior,
helping us to understand the functional role of neural activity,
a key goal of cognitive neuroscience (Batty et al., 2019; Musall,
Urai, Sussillo, & Churchland, 2019). Excitingly, machine learning
and deep learning approaches are also now being applied to the
emerging field of computational psychiatry to simulate normal
and dysfunctional brain states, as well as to identify aberrant
patterns of brain activity that could be used as robust classifiers
for brain disorders (Cho, Yim, Choi, Ko, & Lee, 2019; Durstewitz,
Koppe, & Meyer-Lindenberg, 2019; Koppe, Meyer-Lindenberg, &
Durstewitz, 2021; Zhou et al., 2020).
In the last few years, several reviews have examined the
long and complicated relationship between neuroscience and AI
(see Hassabis, Kumaran, Summerfield, & Botvinick, 2017; Hasson, Nastase, & Goldstein, 2020; Kriegeskorte & Douglas, 2018;
Richards et al., 2019; Ullman, 2019). Here, we aim to give a brief
introduction into how the interplay between neuroscience and
AI fields has stimulated progress in both areas, focusing on four
important themes taken from talks presented at a symposium
entitled ‘‘AI for neuroscience and neuromorphic technologies’’
at the 2020 International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence
and Brain Science; (1) AI models of working memory, (2) AI
visual processing, (3) AI analysis of neuroscience data, and (4)
computational psychiatry. Specifically, we focus on how recent
neuroscience-inspired approaches are resulting in AI that is increasingly brain-like and is not only able to achieve human-like
feats of intelligence, but is also capable of decoding neural activity and accurately predicting behavior and the brain’s mental
contents. This includes spiking and recurrent neural network
models of working memory inspired by the stochastic spiking
properties of biological neurons and their sustained activation
during memory retention, as well as neural network models of
visual processing incorporating convolutional layers inspired by
the architecture of the brain’s visual ventral stream. Additionally,
we discuss how AI is becoming an increasingly powerful tool
for neuroscientists and clinicians, acting as diagnostic and even
therapeutic aids, as well as potentially informing us about brain
mechanisms, including information processing and memory.
2. Neuroscience-inspired artificial working memory
One of the major obstacles of creating brain-like AI systems
has been the challenge of modeling working memory, an important component of intelligence. Today, most in silico systems
utilize a form of working memory known as random-access memory (RAM) that acts as a cache for data required by the central
processor and is separated from long-term memory storage in
solid state or hard disk drives. However, this architecture differs
considerably from the brain, where working and long-term memory appear to involve, at least partly, the same neural substrates,
predominantly the neocortex (Baddeley, 2003; Blumenfeld & Ranganath, 2007; Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986; Shimamura, 1995)
and hippocampus (Bird & Burgess, 2008; Eichenbaum, 2017).
These findings suggest that within these regions, working memory is likely realized by specific brain mechanisms that allow for
fast and short-term access to information.
Working memory tasks performed in humans and non-human
primates have indicated that elevated and persistent activity
within cell assemblies of the prefrontal cortex, as well as other
areas of the neocortex, hippocampus, and brainstem, may be
critical for information retention within working memory (Boran
et al., 2019; Christophel, Klink, Spitzer, Roelfsema, & Haynes,
2017; Fuster & Alexander, 1971; Goldman-Rakic, 1995; McFarland & Fuchs, 1992; Miller, Erickson, & Desimone, 1996; Watanabe & Niki, 1985). In response to these findings, several neural
mechanisms have been proposed to account for this persistent
activity (reviewed in Durstewitz, Seamans, & Sejnowski, 2000).
These include recurrent excitatory connectivity between networks of neurons (Hopfield, 1982; O’Reilly, Braver, & Cohen,
1999), cellular bistability, where the intrinsic properties of neurons can produce a continuously spiking state (Lisman, Fellous,
604
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
& Wang, 1998; Marder, Abbott, Turrigiano, Liu, & Golowasch,
1996; O’Reilly et al., 1999), and synfire chains, where activity
is maintained in synchronously firing feed-forward loops (Diesmann, Gewaltig, & Aertsen, 1999; Prut et al., 1998). Of these, the
most widely researched have been models of persistent excitation
in recurrently connected neural networks. These began with
simple networks, such as recurrent attractor networks, where
discrete working memories represent the activation of attractors,
stable patterns of activity in networks of neurons reciprocally
connected by strong synaptic weights formed by Hebbian learning (Amit, Bernacchia, & Yakovlev, 2003; Amit & Brunel, 1995;
Durstewitz et al., 2000). Afferent input to these networks strong
enough to reach a threshold will trigger recurrent excitation and
induce a suprathreshold of excitation that persists even when
the stimulus is removed, maintaining the stimulus in working
memory. Subsequent and more complex computational models
have demonstrated recurrent networks connecting the cortex,
basal ganglia, and thalamus to be capable of working memory
maintenance, and to be able to explain patterns of neural activity observed in neurophysiological studies of working memory
(Beiser & Houk, 1998; Botvinick & Plaut, 2006; Hazy, Frank, &
O’Reilly, 2007; O’Reilly et al., 1999; Zipser, 1991).
Inspired by above-described biological and computational
studies, artificial recurrent neural networks (RNNs) have been
designed as a model of the recurrent connections between neurons within the brain’s cerebral cortex. These RNNs have since
been reported to be capable of performing a wide variety of
cognitive tasks requiring working memory (Botvinick & Plaut,
2006; Mante, Sussillo, Shenoy, & Newsome, 2013; Rajan, Harvey,
& Tank, 2016; Song, Yang, & Wang, 2016; Sussillo & Abbott, 2009;
Yang, Joglekar, Song, Newsome, & Wang, 2019). More recently,
researchers have been working on a new generation of spiking recurrent neural networks (SRNN), aiming to recreate the stochastic spiking properties of biological circuits and demonstrating
similar performance in cognitive tasks to the above-described
continuous-rate RNN models (Kim, Li, & Sejnowski, 2019; Xue,
Halassa, & Chen, 2021; Yin, Corradi, & Bohté, 2020). These spiking
networks not only aim to achieve greater energy efficiency, but
also provide improved biological plausibility, offering advantages
for modeling and potentially informing how working memory
may be controlled in the brain (Diehl, Zarrella, Cassidy, Pedroni,
& Neftci, 2016; Han, Sengupta, & Roy, 2016; Pfeiffer & Pfeil, 2018;
Taherkhani et al., 2020). Indeed, in a recent study, an SRNN
trained on a working memory task was revealed to show remarkably similar temporal properties to single neurons in the primate
PFC (Kim & Sejnowski, 2021). Further analysis of the model
uncovered the existence of a disinhibitory microcircuit that acts
as a critical component for long neuronal timescales that have
previously been implicated in working memory maintenance
in real and simulated networks (Chaudhuri, Knoblauch, Gariel,
Kennedy, & Wang, 2015; Wasmuht, Spaak, Buschman, Miller,
& Stokes, 2018). The authors speculate that recurrent networks
with similar inhibitory microcircuits may be a common feature
of cortical regions requiring short-term memory maintenance,
suggesting an interesting avenue of study for neuroscientists
researching working memory mechanisms in the brain.
Finally, it is important to note that while there is clear biological evidence for spiking activity during memory retention periods
in working memory tasks, the majority of studies reporting persistent activity during these periods calculated the averaged spiking activity across trials, potentially masking important intra-trial
spiking dynamics (Lundqvist, Herman, & Miller, 2018). Interestingly, recent single-trial analyses of working memory tasks
suggests that frontal cortex networks demonstrate sparse, transient coordinated bursts of spiking activity, rather than persistent
activation (Bastos, Loonis, Kornblith, Lundqvist, & Miller, 2018;
Lundqvist, Herman, Warden, Brincat, & Miller, 2018; Lundqvist
et al., 2016). Such patterns of neural activity may be explained
by models of transient spiking activity, such as the ‘‘synaptic
attractor’’ model, where working memories are maintained by
spike-induced Hebbian synaptic plasticity in between transient
coordinated bursts of activity (Fiebig & Lansner, 2017; Huang &
Wei, 2021; Lundqvist, Herman, & Miller, 2018; Mongillo, Barak, &
Tsodyks, 2008; Sandberg, Tegnér, & Lansner, 2003). These models
suggest that synaptic plasticity may allow working memory to
be temporarily stored in an energy efficient manner that is also
less susceptible to interference, while bursts of spiking may allow
for fast reading of information when necessary (Huang & Wei,
2021; Lundqvist, Herman, & Miller, 2018). Further investigation of
working memory in biological studies using single-trial analyses,
as well as neuroscience-inspired AI models trained on working
memory tasks, may help to elucidate precisely when and how
these spiking and plasticity-based processes are utilized within
the brain.
Here we have discussed how neuroscience findings over the
last few decades inspired the creation of computational models of working memory in humans and non-human primates.
These studies subsequently informed the creation of artificial
neural networks designed to model the organization and function
of brain networks, including the inclusion of recurrent connections between neurons and the introduction of spiking properties.
The relationship between neuroscience and AI research has now
come full circle, with recent SRNN models potentially informing
about brain mechanisms underlying working memory (Kim &
Sejnowski, 2021). In the next section we continue this examination of the benefits of the partnership between neuroscience
and AI research, discussing how brain architectures have inspired
the design of artificial visual processing models and how brain
imaging data has been used to decode and inform how visual
processing is controlled within the brain.
3. Decoding the brain’s visual system
The challenge of creating artificial systems capable of emulating biological visual processing is formidable. However, recent
efforts to understand and reverse engineer the brain’s ventral visual stream, a series of interconnected cortical nuclei responsible
for hierarchically processing and encoding of images into explicit
neural representations, have shown great promise in the creation of robust AI systems capable of decoding and interpreting
human visual processing, as well as performing complex visual
intelligence skills including image recognition (Federer, Xu, Fyshe,
& Zylberberg, 2020; Verschae & Ruiz-del-Solar, 2015), motion
detection (Manchanda & Sharma, 2016; Wu, McGinnity, Maguire,
Cai, & Valderrama-Gonzalez, 2008), and object tracking (Luo et al.,
2020; Soleimanitaleb, Keyvanrad, & Jafari, 2019; Zhang et al.,
2021).
In an effort to understand and measure human visual perception, machine learning models, including support-vector networks, have been trained to decode stimulus-induced fMRI
activity patterns in the human V1 cortical area, and were able to
visually reconstruct the local contrast of presented and internal
mental images (Kamitani & Tong, 2005; Miyawaki et al., 2008).
Similarly, those trained to decode stimulus-induced activity in
higher visual cortical areas were able to identify the semantic contents of dream imagery (Horikawa, Tamaki, Miyawaki, &
Kamitani, 2013). These findings indicate that the visual features
of both perceived and mental images are represented in the
same neural substrates (lower and higher visual areas for lowlevel perceptual and high-level semantic features, respectively),
supporting previous evidence from human PET imaging studies
revealing mental imagery to activate the primary visual cortex, an
605
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
area necessary for visual perception (Kosslyn et al., 1993; Kosslyn,
Thompson, Klm, & Alpert, 1995). Additionally, these studies add
to a growing literature demonstrating the utility of AI for decoding of brain imaging data for objective measurement of human
visual experience (Kamitani & Tong, 2005; Nishimoto et al., 2011).
Finally, beyond machine learning methods, the incorporation of
a deep generator network (DGN) to a very deep convolutional
neural network (CNN) image reconstruction method, allowing
CNN hierarchical processing layers to be fully utilized in a manner
similar to that of the human visual system, has recently been
demonstrated to improve the quality of visual reconstructions
of perceived or mental images compared with the same CNN
without the DGN (Shen, Horikawa, Majima, & Kamitani, 2019).
Interestingly, neural networks trained to perform visual tasks
have often been reported to acquire similar representations to
regions of the brain’s visual system required for the same tasks
(Nonaka, Majima, Aoki, & Kamitani, 2020; Yamins & DiCarlo,
2016). CNNs incorporating hierarchical processing layers similar to that of the visual ventral stream and trained on image
recognition tasks have been reported to be able to accurately
predict neural responses in the inferior temporal (IT) cortex, the
highest area of the ventral visual stream, of primates (Cadieu
et al., 2014; Khaligh-Razavi & Kriegeskorte, 2014; Yamins et al.,
2014). What is more, high-throughput computational evaluation
of candidate CNN models revealed a strong correlation between
a model’s object recognition capability and its ability to predict
IT cortex neural activity (Yamins et al., 2014). Accordingly, recent
evidence revealed that the inclusion of components that closely
predict the activity of the front-end of the visual stream (V1 area)
improve the accuracy of CNNs by reducing their susceptibility to
errors resulting from image perturbations, so-called white box
adversarial attacks (Dapello et al., 2020).
While these studies appear to suggest the merit of ‘‘brainlike’’ AI systems for visual processing, until recently there has
been no method to objectively measure how ‘‘brain-like’’ an
AI visual processing model is. In response to this concern, two
novel metrics, the Brain-Score (BS) (Schrimpf et al., 2020) and
the brain hierarchy (BH) score (Nonaka et al., 2020), have been
created to assess the functional similarity between AI models
and the human visual system. Specifically, the BS measures the
ability of models to predict brain activity and behavior, whereas
the BH is designed to evaluate the hierarchical homology across
layers/areas between neural networks and the brain (Nonaka
et al., 2020; Schrimpf et al., 2020). Interestingly, while evaluation of several commonly used AI visual processing models
found a positive correlation between the BS and the accuracy
for image recognition (i.e., brain-like neural networks performed
better), the opposite result was found when the BH was used
(Nonaka et al., 2020; Schrimpf et al., 2020). Although these findings appear to contradict each other, more recently developed
high-performance neural networks tended to have a lower BS,
suggesting that AI vision may now be diverging from human
vision (Schrimpf et al., 2020). Importantly, and particularly for
the BS, it should be considered that while the ability of a model
to predict brain activity may indicate its functional similarity, it
does not necessarily mean that the model is emulating actual
brain mechanisms. In fact, statisticians have long stressed this
importance of the distinction between explanatory and predictive
modeling (Shmueli, 2010). Thus, if we intend to use AI systems to
model and possibly inform our understanding of visual processing
in the brain, it is important that we continue to increase the
structural and mechanistic correspondence of AI models to their
counterpart systems within the brain, as well as strengthening
the ability of metrics to measure such correspondence. Indeed,
considering the known complexity of the brain’s visual system,
including the existence of multiple cell types (Gonchar, Wang,
& Burkhalter, 2008; Pfeffer, Xue, He, Huang, & Scanziani, 2013)
that are modulated by various neurotransmitters (Azimi et al.,
2020; Noudoost & Moore, 2011), it is likely that comparatively
simplistic artificial neural networks do not yet come close to fully
modeling the myriad of processes contributing to biological visual
processing.
Finally, in addition to their utility for image recognition, braininspired neural networks are now beginning to be applied to
innovative and practical uses within the field of visual neuroscience research. One example of this is the recent use of an
artificial neural network to design precise visual patterns that can
be projected directly onto the retina of primates to accurately
control the activity of individual or groups of ventral stream (V4
area) neurons (Bashivan, Kar, & DiCarlo, 2019). These findings
indicate the potential of this method for non-invasive control of
neural activity in the visual cortex, creating a powerful tool for
neuroscientists. In the next section, we further describe how AI
is now increasingly being utilized for the advancement of neuroscience research, including in the objective analysis of animal
behavior and its neural basis.
4. AI for analyzing behavior and its neural correlates
Understanding the relationship between neural activity and
behavior is a critical goal of neuroscience. Recently developed
large-scale neural imaging techniques have now enabled huge
quantities of data to be collected during behavioral tasks in animals (Ahrens & Engert, 2015; Cardin, Crair, & Higley, 2020;
Weisenburger & Vaziri, 2016; Yang & Yuste, 2017). However,
given the quantity and speed of individual movements animals
perform during behavioral tasks, as well as the difficulty in identifying individual neurons among large and crowded neural imaging datasets, it has been challenging for researchers to effectively
and objectively analyze animal behavior and its precise neural
correlates (Berman, 2018; Giovannucci et al., 2019; von Ziegler,
Sturman, & Bohacek, 2021).
To address difficulties in human labeling of animal behavior, researchers have turned to AI for help. Over the last few
years, several open-source, deep learning-based software toolboxes have been developed for 3D markerless pose estimation
across several species and types of behaviors (Arac, Zhao, Dobkin,
Carmichael, & Golshani, 2019; Forys, Xiao, Gupta, & Murphy,
2020; Graving et al., 2019; Günel et al., 2019; Mathis et al.,
2018; Nath et al., 2019; Pereira et al., 2019). Perhaps the most
widely used of these has been DeepLabCut, a deep neural network that incorporates the feature detectors from DeeperCut, a
multi-person pose estimation model, and is able to accurately
estimate the pose of several commonly used laboratory animals
with minimal training (Lauer et al., 2021; Mathis et al., 2018; Nath
et al., 2019). This pose estimation data can then be combined
with various supervised machine learning tools, including JAABA
(Kabra, Robie, Rivera-Alba, Branson, & Branson, 2013) and SimBA
(Nilsson et al., 2020) that allow for automated identification of
specific behaviors labeled by humans, such as grooming, freezing,
and various social behaviors. This combined use of such tools
has been shown to be able to match human ability for accurate
quantification of several types of behaviors, and can outperform
commercially available animal-tracking software packages (Sturman et al., 2020). In addition to supervised machine learning
analysis of animal behavioral data, several unsupervised machine
learning tools have been developed, including MotionMapper
(Berman, Choi, Bialek, & Shaevitz, 2014), MoSeq (Wiltschko et al.,
2015), and more recently, uBAM (Brattoli et al., 2021). These
unsupervised approaches allow objective classification of the full
repertoire of animal behavior and can potentially uncover subtle
behavioral traits that might be missed by humans (Kwok, 2019).
606
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
As with animal behavioral data, human annotation of animal
neural imaging datasets acquired from large-scale recording of
neural activity, such as that acquired using in-vivo imaging of
neural activity markers such as calcium indicators, is time consuming and suffers from a large degree of variability between
annotators in the segmentation of individual neurons (Giovannucci et al., 2019). In the last decade, several tools utilizing
classic machine learning and deep learning approaches have been
developed to assist the analysis of animal calcium imaging data
through the automated detection and quantification of individual neuron activity, known as source extraction (Pnevmatikakis,
2019). The most widely used of these have been unsupervised
machine learning approaches employing activity-based segmentation algorithms, including principal component and independent component analysis (PCA/ICA) (Mukamel, Nimmerjahn, &
Schnitzer, 2009), variations of constrained non-negative matrix
factorization (CNMF) (Friedrich, Giovannucci, & Pnevmatikakis,
2021; Guan et al., 2018; Pnevmatikakis et al., 2016; Zhou et al.,
2018), and dictionary learning (Giovannucci et al., 2017; Petersen,
Simon, & Witten, 2017), to extract signals of neuron-like regions
of interest from the background. While these techniques offer the
benefit that they require no training and thus can be applied to
analysis of various cell types and even dendritic imaging, they
often suffer from false positives and are unable to identify lowactivity neurons, making it difficult to longitudinally track the
activity of neurons that may be temporally inactive in certain
contexts (Lu et al., 2018). To address this limitation, several supervised deep learning approaches that segment neurons based upon
features learned from human-labeled calcium imaging datasets
have been developed (Apthorpe et al., 2016; Denis, Dard, Quiroli,
Cossart, & Picardo, 2020; Giovannucci et al., 2019; Klibisz, Rose,
Eicholtz, Blundon, & Zakharenko, 2017; Soltanian-Zadeh, Sahingur, Blau, Gong, & Farsiu, 2019; Xu, Su, Zhut, Guan, & Zhangt,
2016). Many of these tools, including U-Net2DS (Klibisz et al.,
2017), STNeuroNet (Soltanian-Zadeh et al., 2019), and DeepCINAC
(Denis et al., 2020), train a CNN to segment neurons in either
2D or 3D space and have been demonstrated to be able to detect neurons with near-human accuracy, and outperform other
techniques including PCA/ICA, allowing for accurate, fast, and
reproducible neural detection and classification (Apthorpe et al.,
2016; Giovannucci et al., 2019; Mukamel et al., 2009).
Finally, efforts are now being made to combine AI analysis of
animal behavior and neural imaging data, not only for automated
mapping of behavior to its neural correlates, but in order to
predict and model animal behavior based on analyzed neural
activity data. One such recently developed system is BehaveNet,
a probabilistic framework for the unsupervised analysis of behavioral video, with semi-supervised decoding of neural activity
(Batty et al., 2019). The resulting generative models of this framework are able to decode animal neural activity data and create
probabilistic full-resolution video simulations of behavior (Batty
et al., 2019). Further development of technologies designed to
automate the mapping of neural activity patterns with behavioral
motifs may help to elucidate how discrete patterns of neural
activity are related to specific movements (Musall et al., 2019).
While the studies here describe approaches to analyzing and
modeling healthy behavior and brain activity in animals, efforts
have also been made to use AI to understand and identify abnormal brain functioning. In the next section, we discuss AI-based
approaches to objective classification of psychiatric disorders, and
how deep learning approaches have been utilized for modeling
such disorders in artificial neural networks.
5. The interface between AI and psychiatry
Despite the adoption of standardized diagnostic criteria in
clinical manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of
Disease (ICD), psychiatric and developmental disorders are still
primarily identified based upon a patient’s subjective behavioral
symptoms and self-report measures. Not only is this method
often unreliable due to its subjectivity (Wakefield, 2016), but it
also leads to an explanatory gap between phenomenology and
neurobiology. However, in the last few decades, huge advancements in the power of computing, alongside the collection of
large neuroimaging datasets, have allowed researchers to begin
to bridge this gap by using AI to identify, model, and potentially
even treat psychiatric and developmental disorders.
One area of particular promise has been the use of AI for
the objective identification of brain disorders. Using machine
learning methods, classifiers have been built to predict diagnostic
labels of psychiatric and developmental disorders (see Bzdok &
Meyer-Lindenberg, 2017; Cho et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2020 for
review). The scores produced by these probabilistic classifiers
provide a degree of classification certainty that can be interpreted as a neural liability for the disorder and represent new
biological dimensions of the disorders. However, while many of
these classifiers, including those for schizophrenia (Greenstein,
Malley, Weisinger, Clasen, & Gogtay, 2012; Orrù, Pettersson-Yeo,
Marquand, Sartori, & Mechelli, 2012; Yassin et al., 2020) and ASD
(Eslami, Almuqhim, Raiker, & Saeed, 2021; Yassin et al., 2020), are
able to accurately identify the intended disorder, a major criticism
has been that they are often only validated in a single sample
cohort. To address this issue, recent attempts have been made to
establish robust classifiers using larger and more varied sample
data. This has led to the identification of classifiers for ASD and
schizophrenia that could be generalized to independent cohorts,
regardless of ethnicity, country, and MRI vendor, and still demonstrated classification accuracies of between 61%–76% (Yamada
et al., 2017; Yoshihara et al., 2020). Asides from machine learning,
deep learning approaches have also been applied to the classification of psychiatric and developmental disorders (see Durstewitz
et al., 2019; Koppe et al., 2021, for review). A major advantage of
deep neural networks is that their multi-layered design makes
them particularly suited to learning high-level representations
from complex raw data, allowing features to extracted from neuroimaging data with far less parameters than machine learning
architectures (Durstewitz et al., 2019; Jang, Plis, Calhoun, & Lee,
2017; Koppe et al., 2021; Plis et al., 2014; Schmidhuber, 2015).
Accordingly, in the last few years, several deep neural networks
have been reported to effectively classify brain disorders from
neuroimaging data, including schizophrenia (Oh, Oh, Lee, Chae,
& Yun, 2020; Sun et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2019; Zeng et al., 2018),
autism (Guo et al., 2017; Heinsfeld, Franco, Craddock, Buchweitz,
& Meneguzzi, 2018; Misman et al., 2019; Raj & Masood, 2020),
ADHD (Chen, Li, et al., 2019; Chen, Song, & Li, 2019; Dubreuil-Vall,
Ruffini, & Camprodon, 2020), and depression (Li, La, Wang, Hu,
& Zhang, 2020; Uyulan et al., 2020). Further development of AI
models for data-driven, dimensional psychiatry will likely help to
address the current discontent surrounding categorical diagnostic
criteria.
In addition to classification of disorders based on neuroimaging data, AI is also increasingly being used to model various
psychiatric and developmental disorders (see Lanillos et al., 2020)
for in-depth reviews). This largely began in the 1980s and 90s
with studies modeling schizophrenia and ASD using artificial
neural networks (Cohen, 1994; Cohen & Servan-Schreiber, 1992;
Hoffman, 1987; Horn & Ruppin, 1995). Many of these models
were inspired by biological evidence of structural and synaptic abnormalities associated with particular psychiatric disorder
607
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
symptoms. For example, evidence of reduced metabolism in the
frontal cortex (Feinberg, 1983; Feinberg, Koresko, & Gottlieb,
1965; Feinberg, Koresko, Gottlieb, & Wender, 1964) and aberrant synaptic regeneration of abnormal brain structures (Stevens,
1992) have prompted the creation of neural networks designed to
simulate how synaptic pruning (Hoffman & Dobscha, 1989) and
reactive synaptic reorganization (Horn & Ruppin, 1995; Ruppin,
Reggia, & Horn, 1996) may explain delusions and hallucinations
in schizophrenia patients. Similarly, neural network models of
excessive or reduced neuronal connections (Cohen, 1994, 1998;
Thomas, Knowland, & Karmiloff-Smith, 2011) were generated to
model biological observations of abnormal neuronal density in
cortical, limbic and cerebellar regions (Bailey et al., 1998; Bauman, 1991; Bauman & Kemper, 1985) hypothesized to contribute
to developmental regression in ASD. Excitingly, more recently,
deep learning models, including high-dimensional RNN models of
schizophrenia (Yamashita & Tani, 2012) and ASD (Idei et al., 2017,
2018), have begun to be implemented into robots, allowing direct
observation and comparison of modeled behavior with that seen
in patients.
Finally, in the near future, AI could begin to play an important role in the treatment of psychiatric and developmental
disorders. Computer-assisted therapy (CAT), including AI chatbots
delivering cognitive behavioral therapies, is beginning to be
tested for treatment of psychiatric disorders including depression
and anxiety (Carroll & Rounsaville, 2010; Fitzpatrick, Darcy, &
Vierhile, 2017; Fulmer, Joerin, Gentile, Lakerink, & Rauws, 2018).
While still in their infancy, these CATs offer distinct advantages to
human-led therapies in terms of price and accessibility, although
their effectiveness in comparison to currently used therapeutic methods has yet to be robustly measured. Additionally, the
identification of neuroimaging-based classifiers for psychiatric
disorders (described above) has inspired the launch of a real-time
fMRI-based neurofeedback projects in which patients attempt to
normalize their own brain connectivity pattern through neurofeedback. Meta-analyses of such studies have indicated neurofeedback treatments to result in significant amelioration of the
symptoms of several disorders including schizophrenia, depression, anxiety disorder, and ASD, suggesting the potential benefit
of further use of such digital treatments (Dudek & Dodell-Feder,
2020; Schoenberg & David, 2014).
6. Conclusions
Since the inception of AI research midway through the last
century, the brain has served as the primary source of inspiration
for the creation of artificial systems of intelligence. This is largely
based upon the reasoning that the brain is proof of concept
of a comprehensive intelligence system capable of perception,
planning, and decision making, and therefore offers an attractive
template for the design of AI. In this review, based upon topics presented at the 2020 International Symposium on Artificial
Intelligence and Brain Science, we have discussed how braininspired mechanistic, structural, and functional elements are being utilized to create novel, and optimize existing, AI systems. In
particular, this has led to the development of high-dimensional
deep neural networks often incorporating hierarchical architectures inspired by those found in the brain and capable of feats
of intelligence including visual object recognition and memorybased cognitive tasks. Advancements in AI have also helped to
foster progress within the field of neuroscience. Here we have described how the use of machine learning and neural networks for
automated analysis of big data has revolutionized the analysis of
animal behavioral and neuroimaging studies, as well as being utilized for objective classification of psychiatric and developmental
disorders.
Importantly, while it has not been discussed in great detail
in the current review, it should be considered that the relationship between AI and neuroscience is not simply two-way, but
rather also includes the field of cognitive science (see Battleday,
Peterson, & Griffiths, 2021; Cichy & Kaiser, 2019; Forbus, 2010;
Kriegeskorte & Douglas, 2018, for review). Indeed, over the years,
much of AI research has been guided by theories of brain functioning established by cognitive scientists (Elman, 1990; Hebb,
1949; Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986). For example, the convolutional neural networks discussed earlier in this review (in the
section on visual processing) were inspired in part by computational models of cognition within the brain, including principles
such as nonlinear feature maps and pooling of inputs, which were
themselves derived from observations from neurophysiological
studies in animals (Battleday et al., 2021; Fukushima, 1980; Hubel
& Wiesel, 1962; Mozer, 1987; Riesenhuber & Poggio, 1999). In
turn, neural networks have been used to guide new cognitive
models of intellectual abilities, including perception, memory,
and language, giving rise to the connectionism movement within
cognitive science (Barrow, 1996; Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1988; Mayor,
Gomez, Chang, & Lupyan, 2014; Yamins & DiCarlo, 2016). If we
are to use AI to model and potentially elucidate brain functioning, the primary focus of cognitive science, it is important that
we continue to not only use biological data from neuroscience
studies, but also cognitive models, to inspire the architectural,
mechanistic, and algorithmic design of artificial neural networks.
Despite their accomplishments and apparent complexity, current AI systems are still remarkably simplistic in comparison to
brain networks and in many cases still lack the ability to accurately model brain functions (Bae, Kim, & Kim, 2021; Barrett, Morcos, & Macke, 2019; Hasson et al., 2020; Pulvermüller, Tomasello,
Henningsen-Schomers, & Wennekers, 2021; Tang et al., 2019). A
major limitation is that, in general, current models are still not
able to model the brain at multiple levels; from synaptic reorganization and the influence of neurotransmitter and hormone
neuromodulation of neuronal excitability at the microlevel, to
large-scale synchronization of spiking activity and global connectivity at the macrolevel. In fact, integration of various AI
models of brain functioning, including the models of the cerebral
cortex described in this review, as well as models of other brain
regions, including limbic and motor control regions (Kowalczuk
& Czubenko, 2016; Merel, Botvinick, & Wayne, 2019; Parsapoor,
2016), remains one of the greatest challenges in the creation of an
AGI system capable of modeling the entire brain. In spite of these
difficulties, it is clear that the continued interaction between
neuroscience and AI will undoubtedly expedite progress in both
areas.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This is supported by MEXT Grant-in-Aid Scientific Research on
Innovative Areas ‘‘Correspondence and Fusion of Artificial Intelligence and Brain Science’’ (JP16H06568 to TH and TM, JP16H06572
to HT).
References
Ahrens, M. B., & Engert, F. (2015). Large-scale imaging in small brains. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology, 32, 78–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2015.01.
007.
608
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
Amit, D. J., Bernacchia, A., & Yakovlev, V. (2003). Multiple-object working memory—A model for behavioral performance. Cerebral Cortex, 13(5),
435–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/13.5.435.
Amit, D. J., & Brunel, N. (1995). Learning internal representations in an attractor
neural network with analogue neurons. Network. Computation in Neural
Systems, 6(3), 359–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0954-898x_6_3_004.
Apthorpe, N. J., Riordan, A. J., Aguilar, R. E., Homann, J., Gu, Y., Tank, D. W.,
et al. (2016). Automatic neuron detection in calcium imaging data using
convolutional networks. ArXiv.
Arac, A., Zhao, P., Dobkin, B. H., Carmichael, S. T., & Golshani, P. (2019).
DeepBehavior: A deep learning toolbox for automated analysis of animal
and human behavior imaging data. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 13, 20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2019.00020.
Azimi, Z., Barzan, R., Spoida, K., Surdin, T., Wollenweber, P., Mark, M. D., et al.
(2020). Separable gain control of ongoing and evoked activity in the visual
cortex by serotonergic input. ELife, 9, Article e53552. http://dx.doi.org/10.
7554/elife.53552.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201.
Bae, H., Kim, S. J., & Kim, C.-E. (2021). Lessons from deep neural networks
for studying the coding principles of biological neural networks. Frontiers
in Systems Neuroscience, 14, Article 615129. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.
2020.615129.
Bailey, A., Luthert, P., Dean, A., Harding, B., Janota, I., Montgomery, M., et
al. (1998). A clinicopathological study of autism. Brain, 121(5), 889–905.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/121.5.889.
Barrett, D. G., Morcos, A. S., & Macke, J. H. (2019). Analyzing biological and
artificial neural networks: Challenges with opportunities for synergy? Current
Opinion in Neurobiology, 55, 55–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2019.01.
007.
Barrow, H. (1996). Connectionism and neural networks. In M. A. Boden (Ed.),
Artificial intelligence: Handbook of perception and cognition. Academic Press,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-012161964-0/50007-8.
Bashivan, P., Kar, K., & DiCarlo, J. J. (2019). Neural population control via deep
image synthesis. Science, 364(6439), Article eaav9436. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1126/science.aav9436.
Bastos, A. M., Loonis, R., Kornblith, S., Lundqvist, M., & Miller, E. K. (2018).
Laminar recordings in frontal cortex suggest distinct layers for maintenance
and control of working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 115(5), 1117–1122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710323115.
Bastos, A. M., Usrey, W. M., Adams, R. A., Mangun, G. R., Fries, P., & Friston, K. J.
(2012). Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron, 76(4), 695–711.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038.
Battleday, R. M., Peterson, J. C., & Griffiths, T. L. (2021). From convolutional neural
networks to models of higher-level cognition (and back again). Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14593.
Batty, E., Whiteway, M., Saxena, S., Biderman, D., Abe, T., Musall, S., et al.
(2019). BehaveNet: Nonlinear embedding and Bayesian neural decoding of
behavioral videos. In 33rd conference on neural information processing systems.
Bauman, M. L. (1991). Microscopic neuroanatomic abnormalities in autism.
Pediatrics, 87(5 Pt 2), 791–796.
Bauman, M., & Kemper, T. L. (1985). Histoanatomic observations of the brain in
early infantile autism. Neurology, 35(6), 866. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/wnl.
35.6.866.
Beiser, D. G., & Houk, J. C. (1998). Model of cortical-basal ganglionic processing:
Encoding the serial order of sensory events. Journal of Neurophysiology, 79(6),
3168–3188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.1998.79.6.3168.
Bengio, Y. (1993). A connectionist approach to speech recognition. International
Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 07(04), 647–667.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s0218001493000327.
Berman, G. J. (2018). Measuring behavior across scales. BMC Biology, 16(1), 23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12915-018-0494-7.
Berman, G. J., Choi, D. M., Bialek, W., & Shaevitz, J. W. (2014). Mapping the
stereotyped behaviour of freely moving fruit flies. Journal of the Royal Society
Interface, 11(99), Article 20140672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0672.
Bird, C. M., & Burgess, N. (2008). The hippocampus and memory: Insights
from spatial processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(3), 182–194. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2335.
Blumenfeld, R. S., & Ranganath, C. (2007). Prefrontal cortex and long-term
memory encoding: An integrative review of findings from neuropsychology
and neuroimaging. The Neuroscientist, 13(3), 280–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1073858407299290.
Boran, E., Fedele, T., Klaver, P., Hilfiker, P., Stieglitz, L., Grunwald, T., et al. (2019).
Persistent hippocampal neural firing and hippocampal-cortical coupling predict verbal working memory load. Science Advances, 5(3), Article eaav3687.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3687.
Botvinick, M. M., & Plaut, D. C. (2006). Short-term memory for serial order:
A recurrent neural network model. Psychological Review, 113(2), 201–233.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.113.2.201.
Brattoli, B., Büchler, U., Dorkenwald, M., Reiser, P., Filli, L., Helmchen, F., et al.
(2021). Unsupervised behaviour analysis and magnification (uBAM) using
deep learning. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(6), 495–506. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/s42256-021-00326-x.
Bzdok, D., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2017). Machine learning for precision
psychiatry: Opportunities and challenges. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive
Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(3), 223–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bpsc.2017.11.007.
Cadieu, C. F., Hong, H., Yamins, D. L. K., Pinto, N., Ardila, D., Solomon, E. A., et al.
(2014). Deep neural networks rival the representation of primate IT cortex
for core visual object recognition. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(12), Article
e1003963. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003963.
Cardin, J. A., Crair, M. C., & Higley, M. J. (2020). Mesoscopic imaging: Shining
a wide light on large-scale neural dynamics. Neuron, 108(1), 33–43. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.09.031.
Carroll, K. M., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2010). Computer-assisted therapy in psychiatry: Be brave—It’s a new world. Current Psychiatry Reports, 12(5), 426–432.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11920-010-0146-2.
Chaudhuri, R., Knoblauch, K., Gariel, M.-A., Kennedy, H., & Wang, X.-J. (2015). A
large-scale circuit mechanism for hierarchical dynamical processing in the
primate cortex. Neuron, 88(2), 419–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.
2015.09.008.
Chen, M., Li, H., Wang, J., Dillman, J. R., Parikh, N. A., & He, L. (2019). A
multichannel deep neural network model analyzing multiscale functional
brain connectome data for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder detection.
Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, 2(1), Article e190012. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1148/ryai.2019190012.
Chen, H., Song, Y., & Li, X. (2019). A deep learning framework for identifying
children with ADHD using an EEG-based brain network. Neurocomputing,
356, 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.04.058.
Cho, G., Yim, J., Choi, Y., Ko, J., & Lee, S.-H. (2019). Review of machine
learning algorithms for diagnosing mental illness. Psychiatry Investigation,
16(4), 262–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.30773/pi.2018.12.21.2.
Christophel, T. B., Klink, P. C., Spitzer, B., Roelfsema, P. R., & Haynes, J.-D. (2017).
The distributed nature of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
21(2), 111–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.007.
Cichy, R. M., & Kaiser, D. (2019). Deep neural networks as scientific models.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(4), 305–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.
2019.01.009.
Cohen, I. L. (1994). An artificial neural network analogue of learning in autism.
Biological Psychiatry, 36(1), 5–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0006-3223(94)
90057-4.
Cohen, I. L. (1998). In D. J. Stein, & J. Ludik (Eds.), Neural network analysis of
learning in autism. Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. D., & Servan-Schreiber, D. (1992). Context, cortex, and dopamine: A connectionist approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. Psychological
Review, 99(1), 45–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.45.
Crick, F. (1989). The recent excitement about neural networks. Nature, 337(6203),
129–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/337129a0.
Dabney, W., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Uchida, N., Starkweather, C. K., Hassabis, D.,
Munos, R., et al. (2020). A distributional code for value in dopaminebased reinforcement learning. Nature, 577(7792), 671–675. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/s41586-019-1924-6.
Dapello, J., Marques, T., Schrimpf, M., Geiger, F., Cox, D. D., & DiCarlo, J. J. (2020).
Simulating a primary visual cortex at the front of CNNs improves robustness to image perturbations. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.16.154542,
BioRxiv, 2020.06.16.154542.
Denis, J., Dard, R. F., Quiroli, E., Cossart, R., & Picardo, M. A. (2020). DeepCINAC: A
deep-learning-based Python toolbox for inferring calcium imaging neuronal
activity based on movie visualization. ENeuro, 7(4), http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/
eneuro.0038-20.2020, ENEURO.0038-20.2020.
Diehl, P. U., Zarrella, G., Cassidy, A., Pedroni, B. U., & Neftci, E. (2016). Conversion of artificial recurrent neural networks to spiking neural networks for
low-power neuromorphic hardware. ArXiv.
Diesmann, M., Gewaltig, M.-O., & Aertsen, A. (1999). Stable propagation of
synchronous spiking in cortical neural networks. Nature, 402(6761), 529–533.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/990101.
Dubreuil-Vall, L., Ruffini, G., & Camprodon, J. A. (2020). Deep learning convolutional neural networks discriminate adult ADHD from healthy individuals
on the basis of event-related spectral EEG. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00251.
Dudek, E., & Dodell-Feder, D. (2020). The efficacy of real-time functional
magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback for psychiatric illness: A metaanalysis of brain and behavioral outcomes. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral
Reviews, 121, 291–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.12.020.
Durstewitz, D., Koppe, G., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2019). Deep neural networks
in psychiatry. Molecular Psychiatry, 24(11), 1583–1598. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/s41380-019-0365-9.
Durstewitz, D., Seamans, J. K., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Neurocomputational
models of working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 3(Suppl. 11), 1184–1191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/81460.
609
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
Eichenbaum, H. (2017). Prefrontal–hippocampal interactions in episodic memory.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(9), 547–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn.
2017.74.
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179–211.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(90)90002-e.
Eslami, T., Almuqhim, F., Raiker, J. S., & Saeed, F. (2021). Machine learning methods for diagnosing autism spectrum disorder and attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder using functional and structural MRI: A survey.
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 14, Article 575999. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/
fninf.2020.575999.
Federer, C., Xu, H., Fyshe, A., & Zylberberg, J. (2020). Improved object recognition
using neural networks trained to mimic the brain’s statistical properties.
Neural Networks, 131, 103–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2020.07.
013.
Feinberg, I. (1983). Schizophrenia: Caused by a fault in programmed synaptic elimination during adolescence? Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17(4),
319–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(82)90038-3.
Feinberg, I., Koresko, R. L., & Gottlieb, F. (1965). Further observations on electrophysiological sleep patterns in schizophrenia. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6(1),
21–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0010-440x(65)80004-9.
Feinberg, I., Koresko, R. L., Gottlieb, F., & Wender, P. H. (1964). Sleep electroencephalographic and eye-movement patterns in schizophrenic patients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 5(1), 44–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0010-440x(64)
80042-0.
Fiebig, F., & Lansner, A. (2017). A spiking working memory model based on
hebbian short-term potentiation. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(1), 83–96. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1989-16.2016.
Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017). Delivering cognitive behavior
therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using
a fully automated conversational agent (woebot): A randomized controlled
trial. JMIR Mental Health, 4(2), Article e19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mental.
7785.
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture:
A critical analysis. Cognition, 28(1–2), 3–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-
0277(88)90031-5.
Forbus, K. D. (2010). AI and cognitive science: The past and next 30 years.
Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 345–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-
8765.2010.01083.x.
Forys, B. J., Xiao, D., Gupta, P., & Murphy, T. H. (2020). Real-time selective
markerless tracking of forepaws of head fixed mice using deep neural networks. ENeuro, 7(3), http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/eneuro.0096-20.2020,
ENEURO.0096-20.2020.
Friedrich, J., Giovannucci, A., & Pnevmatikakis, E. A. (2021). Online analysis of
microendoscopic 1-photon calcium imaging data streams. PLoS Computational Biology, 17(1), Article e1008565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.
1008565.
Fukushima, K. (1980). Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for
a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position. Biological
Cybernetics, 36(4), 193–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00344251.
Fulmer, R., Joerin, A., Gentile, B., Lakerink, L., & Rauws, M. (2018). Using
psychological artificial intelligence (tess) to relieve symptoms of depression
and anxiety: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 5(4), Article
e64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mental.9782.
Fuster, J. M., & Alexander, G. E. (1971). Neuron activity related to short-term
memory. Science, 173(3997), 652–654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.173.
3997.652.
Giovannucci, A., Friedrich, J., Gunn, P., Kalfon, J., Brown, B. L., Koay, S. A., et
al. (2019). CaImAn an open source tool for scalable calcium imaging data
analysis. ELife, 8, Article e38173. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.38173.
Giovannucci, A., Friedrich, J., Kaufman, M., Churchland, A., Chklovskii, D., Paninski, L., et al. (2017). OnACID: Online analysis of calcium imaging data in real
time*. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/193383, BioRxiv, 193383.
Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1995). Cellular basis of working memory. Neuron, 14(3),
477–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0896-6273(95)90304-6.
Gonchar, Y., Wang, Q., & Burkhalter, A. H. (2008). Multiple distinct subtypes of
GABAergic neurons in mouse visual cortex identified by triple immunostaining. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, 2, 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/neuro.05.003.
2007.
Graving, J. M., Chae, D., Naik, H., Li, L., Koger, B., Costelloe, B. R., et al. (2019).
DeepPoseKit, a software toolkit for fast and robust animal pose estimation
using deep learning. ELife, 8, Article e47994. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.
47994.
Greenstein, D., Malley, J. D., Weisinger, B., Clasen, L., & Gogtay, N. (2012).
Using multivariate machine learning methods and structural MRI to classify
childhood onset schizophrenia and healthy controls. Frontiers in Psychiatry,
3, 53. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00053.
Grossberg, S. (1987). Competitive learning: From interactive activation to adaptive resonance. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 23–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1551-6708.1987.tb00862.x.
Guan, J., Li, J., Liang, S., Li, R., Li, X., Shi, X., et al. (2018). NeuroSeg: Automated cell
detection and segmentation for in vivo two-photon Ca2+ imaging data. Brain
Structure and Function, 223(1), 519–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00429-
017-1545-5.
Günel, S., Rhodin, H., Morales, D., Campagnolo, J., Ramdya, P., & Fua, P. (2019).
DeepFly3D, a deep learning-based approach for 3D limb and appendage
tracking in tethered, adult Drosophila. ELife, 8, Article e48571. http://dx.doi.
org/10.7554/elife.48571.
Guo, X., Dominick, K. C., Minai, A. A., Li, H., Erickson, C. A., & Lu, L. J. (2017).
Diagnosing autism spectrum disorder from brain resting-state functional
connectivity patterns using a deep neural network with a novel feature
selection method. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, 460. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3389/fnins.2017.00460.
Han, B., Sengupta, A., & Roy, K. (2016). On the energy benefits of spiking deep
neural networks: A case study (special session paper). In 2016 international
joint conference on neural networks (pp. 971–976). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
ijcnn.2016.7727303.
Hassabis, D., Kumaran, D., Summerfield, C., & Botvinick, M. (2017). Neuroscienceinspired artificial intelligence. Neuron, 95(2), 245–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.neuron.2017.06.011.
Hasson, U., Nastase, S. A., & Goldstein, A. (2020). Direct fit to nature: An
evolutionary perspective on biological and artificial neural networks. Neuron,
105(3), 416–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.12.002.
Hazy, T. E., Frank, M. J., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2007). Towards an executive without a
homunculus: Computational models of the prefrontal cortex/basal ganglia
system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B (Biological
Sciences), 362(1485), 1601–1613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2055.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. Wiley & Sons.
Heinsfeld, A. S., Franco, A. R., Craddock, R. C., Buchweitz, A., & Meneguzzi, F.
(2018). Identification of autism spectrum disorder using deep learning and
the ABIDE dataset. NeuroImage: Clinical, 17, 16–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.nicl.2017.08.017.
Hoffman, R. E. (1987). Computer simulations of neural information processing
and the schizophrenia-mania dichotomy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44(2),
178–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1987.01800140090014.
Hoffman, R. E., & Dobscha, S. K. (1989). Cortical pruning and the development
of schizophrenia: A computer model. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 15(3), 477–490.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/15.3.477.
Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent
collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 79(8), 2554–2558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554.
Horikawa, T., Tamaki, M., Miyawaki, Y., & Kamitani, Y. (2013). Neural decoding
of visual imagery during sleep. Science, 340(6132), 639–642. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1126/science.1234330.
Horn, D., & Ruppin, E. (1995). Compensatory mechanisms in an attractor neural
network model of schizophrenia. Neural Computation, 7(1), 182–205. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1162/neco.1995.7.1.182.
Huang, Q.-S., & Wei, H. (2021). A computational model of working memory based
on spike-timing-dependent plasticity. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience,
15, Article 630999. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2021.630999.
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and
functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. Journal Physiology, 160(1),
106–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1962.sp006837.
Idei, H., Murata, S., Chen, Y., Yamashita, Y., Tani, J., & Ogata, T. (2017). Reduced
behavioral flexibility by aberrant sensory precision in autism spectrum disorder: A neurorobotics experiment. In 2017 joint IEEE international conference
on development and learning and epigenetic robotics (pp. 271–276). http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/devlrn.2017.8329817.
Idei, H., Murata, S., Chen, Y., Yamashita, Y., Tani, J., & Ogata, T. (2018). A
neurorobotics simulation of autistic behavior induced by unusual sensory
precision. Computational Psychiatry, 2(0), 164–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/
cpsy_a_00019.
Jang, H., Plis, S. M., Calhoun, V. D., & Lee, J.-H. (2017). Task-specific feature extraction and classification of fMRI volumes using a deep neural
network initialized with a deep belief network: Evaluation using sensorimotor tasks. NeuroImage, 145(Pt B), 314–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuroimage.2016.04.003.
Kabra, M., Robie, A. A., Rivera-Alba, M., Branson, S., & Branson, K. (2013). JAABA:
Interactive machine learning for automatic annotation of animal behavior.
Nature Methods, 10(1), 64–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2281.
Kamitani, Y., & Tong, F. (2005). Decoding the visual and subjective contents of
the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 8(5), 679–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/nn1444.
Khaligh-Razavi, S.-M., & Kriegeskorte, N. (2014). Deep supervised, but not
unsupervised, models may explain IT cortical representation. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(11), Article e1003915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pcbi.1003915.
Kim, R., Li, Y., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2019). Simple framework for constructing
functional spiking recurrent neural networks. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 116(45), 22811–22820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1905926116.
610
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
Kim, R., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2021). Strong inhibitory signaling underlies stable
temporal dynamics and working memory in spiking neural networks. Nature
Neuroscience, 24(1), 129–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-00753-
w.
Klibisz, A., Rose, D., Eicholtz, M., Blundon, J., & Zakharenko, S. (2017). Fast, simple
calcium imaging segmentation with fully convolutional networks. ArXiv.
Koppe, G., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., & Durstewitz, D. (2021). Deep learning for
small and big data in psychiatry. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(1), 176–190.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-0767-z.
Kosslyn, S. M., Alpert, N. M., Thompson, W. L., Maljkovic, V., Weise, S. B.,
Chabris, C. F., et al. (1993). Visual mental imagery activates topographically
organized visual cortex: PET investigations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
5(3), 263–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1993.5.3.263.
Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., Klm, I. J., & Alpert, N. M. (1995). Topographical
representations of mental images in primary visual cortex. Nature, 378(6556),
496–498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/378496a0.
Kowalczuk, Z., & Czubenko, M. (2016). Computational approaches to modeling
artificial emotion – An overview of the proposed solutions. Frontiers in
Robotics and AI, 3, 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00021.
Kriegeskorte, N., & Douglas, P. K. (2018). Cognitive computational neuroscience.
Nature Neuroscience, 21(9), 1148–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41593-
018-0210-5.
Krotov, D., & Hopfield, J. J. (2019). Unsupervised learning by competing hidden units. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), Article
201820458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820458116.
Kwok, R. (2019). Deep learning powers a motion-tracking revolution. Nature,
574(7776), 137–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02942-5.
Lanillos, P., Oliva, D., Philippsen, A., Yamashita, Y., Nagai, Y., & Cheng, G. (2020).
A review on neural network models of schizophrenia and autism spectrum
disorder. Neural Networks, 122, 338–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.
2019.10.014.
Lauer, J., Zhou, M., Ye, S., Menegas, W., Nath, T., Rahman, M. M., et al. (2021).
Multi-animal pose estimation and tracking with DeepLabCut. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1101/2021.04.30.442096, BioRxiv, 2021.04.30.442096.
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553),
436–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14539.
LeCun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J. S., Henderson, D., Howard, R. E., Hubbard, W., et al.
(1989). Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition. Neural
Computation, 1(4), 541–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/neco.1989.1.4.541.
Li, X., La, R., Wang, Y., Hu, B., & Zhang, X. (2020). A deep learning approach
for mild depression recognition based on functional connectivity using
electroencephalography. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 192. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3389/fnins.2020.00192.
Lillicrap, T. P., Cownden, D., Tweed, D. B., & Akerman, C. J. (2016). Random synaptic feedback weights support error backpropagation for deep learning. Nature
Communications, 7(1), 13276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13276.
Lillicrap, T. P., Santoro, A., Marris, L., Akerman, C. J., & Hinton, G. (2020).
Backpropagation and the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 21(6), 335–346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0277-3.
Lisman, J. E., Fellous, J.-M., & Wang, X.-J. (1998). A role for NMDA-receptor
channels in working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 1(4), 273–275. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1038/1086.
Lu, J., Li, C., Singh-Alvarado, J., Zhou, Z. C., Fröhlich, F., Mooney, R., et al. (2018).
MIN1PIPE: A miniscope 1-photon-based calcium imaging signal extraction
pipeline. Cell Reports, 23(12), 3673–3684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.
2018.05.062.
Lundqvist, M., Herman, P., & Miller, E. K. (2018). Working memory: Delay
activity, yes! persistent activity? Maybe not. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(32),
7013–7019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2485-17.2018.
Lundqvist, M., Herman, P., Warden, M. R., Brincat, S. L., & Miller, E. K. (2018).
Gamma and beta bursts during working memory readout suggest roles in
its volitional control. Nature Communications, 9(1), 394. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/s41467-017-02791-8.
Lundqvist, M., Rose, J., Herman, P., Brincat, S. L., Buschman, T. J., & Miller, E. K.
(2016). Gamma and beta bursts underlie working memory. Neuron, 90(1),
152–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.02.028.
Luo, W., Xing, J., Milan, A., Zhang, X., Liu, W., & Kim, T.-K. (2020). Multiple
object tracking: A literature review. Artificial Intelligence, 293, Article 103448.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103448.
Manchanda, S., & Sharma, S. (2016). Analysis of computer vision based techniques for motion detection. In 2016 6th international conference - cloud
system and big data engineering (confluence) (pp. 445–450). http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/confluence.2016.7508161.
Mandler, G. (2002). Origins of the cognitive (r)evolution. Journal of the History of
the Behavioral Sciences, 38(4), 339–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.10066.
Mante, V., Sussillo, D., Shenoy, K. V., & Newsome, W. T. (2013). Contextdependent computation by recurrent dynamics in prefrontal cortex. Nature,
503(7474), 78–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12742.
Marder, E., Abbott, L. F., Turrigiano, G. G., Liu, Z., & Golowasch, J. (1996).
Memory from the dynamics of intrinsic membrane currents. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 93(24), 13481–13486. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1073/pnas.93.24.13481.
Mathis, A., Mamidanna, P., Cury, K. M., Abe, T., Murthy, V. N., Mathis, M.
W., et al. (2018). DeepLabCut: Markerless pose estimation of user-defined
body parts with deep learning. Nature Neuroscience, 21(9), 1281–1289. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y.
Mayor, J., Gomez, P., Chang, F., & Lupyan, G. (2014). Connectionism coming
of age: Legacy and future challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 187. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00187.
McFarland, J. L., & Fuchs, A. F. (1992). Discharge patterns in nucleus prepositus
hypoglossi and adjacent medial vestibular nucleus during horizontal eye
movement in behaving macaques. Journal of Neurophysiology, 68(1), 319–332.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.1992.68.1.319.
Merel, J., Botvinick, M., & Wayne, G. (2019). Hierarchical motor control in
mammals and machines. Nature Communications, 10(1), 5489. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-019-13239-6.
Miconi, T. (2017). Biologically plausible learning in recurrent neural networks
reproduces neural dynamics observed during cognitive tasks. ELife, 6, Article
e20899. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.20899.
Miller, E. K., Erickson, C. A., & Desimone, R. (1996). Neural mechanisms of visual
working memory in prefrontal cortex of the macaque. Journal of Neuroscience,
16(16), 5154–5167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.16-16-05154.1996.
Millidge, B., Tschantz, A., & Buckley, C. L. (2020). Predictive coding approximates
backprop along arbitrary computation graphs. ArXiv.
Minsky, M., & Papert, S. A. (1969). Perceptrons: An introduction to computational
geometry. MIT Press.
Misman, M. F., Samah, A. A., Ezudin, F. A., Majid, H. A., Shah, Z. A., Hashim, H., et
al. (2019). Classification of adults with autism spectrum disorder using deep
neural network. In 2019 1st international conference on artificial intelligence
and data sciences (vol. 00) (pp. 29–34). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/aidas47888.
2019.8970823.
Miyawaki, Y., Uchida, H., Yamashita, O., Sato, M., Morito, Y., Tanabe, H. C., et
al. (2008). Visual image reconstruction from human brain activity using a
combination of multiscale local image decoders. Neuron, 60(5), 915–929.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.004.
Mongillo, G., Barak, O., & Tsodyks, M. (2008). Synaptic theory of working
memory. Science, 319(5869), 1543–1546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.
1150769.
Moravčík, M., Schmid, M., Burch, N., Lisý, V., Morrill, D., Bard, N., et al.
(2017). DeepStack: Expert-level artificial intelligence in heads-up nolimit poker. Science, 356(6337), Article eaam6960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.aam6960.
Mozer, M. C. (1987). Early parallel processing in reading: A connectionist
approach. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology
of reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mukamel, E. A., Nimmerjahn, A., & Schnitzer, M. J. (2009). Automated analysis
of cellular signals from large-scale calcium imaging data. Neuron, 63(6),
747–760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.08.009.
Musall, S., Urai, A. E., Sussillo, D., & Churchland, A. K. (2019). Harnessing
behavioral diversity to understand neural computations for cognition. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology, 58, 229–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2019.
09.011.
Nath, T., Mathis, A., Chen, A. C., Patel, A., Bethge, M., & Mathis, M. W.
(2019). Using DeepLabCut for 3D markerless pose estimation across species
and behaviors. Nature protocols, 14(7), 2152–2176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
s41596-019-0176-0.
Nilsson, S. R., Goodwin, N. L., Choong, J. J., Hwang, S., Wright, H. R., Norville, Z. C.,
et al. (2020). Simple Behavioral Analysis (SimBA) – an open source toolkit for
computer classification of complex social behaviors in experimental animals.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.19.049452, BioRxiv, 2020.04.19.049452.
Nishimoto, S., Vu, A. T., Naselaris, T., Benjamini, Y., Yu, B., & Gallant, J. L. (2011).
Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural
movies. Current Biology, 21(19), 1641–1646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.
2011.08.031.
Nonaka, S., Majima, K., Aoki, S. C., & Kamitani, Y. (2020). Brain hierarchy score:
Which deep neural networks are hierarchically brain-like? http://dx.doi.org/
10.1101/2020.07.22.216713, BioRxiv, 2020.07.22.216713.
Noudoost, B., & Moore, T. (2011). Control of visual cortical signals by prefrontal dopamine. Nature, 474(7351), 372–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature09995.
Oh, J., Oh, B.-L., Lee, K.-U., Chae, J.-H., & Yun, K. (2020). Identifying schizophrenia
using structural MRI with a deep learning algorithm. Frontiers in Psychiatry,
11, 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00016.
O’Reilly, R., Braver, T., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). A biologically based computational model of working memory. In A. Miyake, & P. Shah (Eds.), Models
of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 375–411). Cambridge University Press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
cbo9781139174909.014.
611
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
Orrù, G., Pettersson-Yeo, W., Marquand, A. F., Sartori, G., & Mechelli, A.
(2012). Using Support Vector Machine to identify imaging biomarkers of
neurological and psychiatric disease: A critical review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(4), 1140–1152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.
2012.01.004.
Parsapoor, M. (2016). Brain emotional learning-based prediction model (for
long-term chaotic prediction applications). ArXiv.
Pereira, T. D., Aldarondo, D. E., Willmore, L., Kislin, M., Wang, S. S.-H., Murthy, M.,
et al. (2019). Fast animal pose estimation using deep neural networks. Nature
Methods, 16(1), 117–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41592-018-0234-5.
Petersen, A., Simon, N., & Witten, D. (2017). SCALPEL: Extracting neurons from
calcium imaging data. ArXiv.
Pfeffer, C. K., Xue, M., He, M., Huang, Z. J., & Scanziani, M. (2013). Inhibition
of inhibition in visual cortex: The logic of connections between molecularly
distinct interneurons. Nature Neuroscience, 16(8), 1068–1076. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/nn.3446.
Pfeiffer, M., & Pfeil, T. (2018). Deep learning with spiking neurons: Opportunities
and challenges. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 774. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/
fnins.2018.00774.
Plis, S. M., Hjelm, D. R., Salakhutdinov, R., Allen, E. A., Bockholt, H. J., Long, J. D.,
et al. (2014). Deep learning for neuroimaging: A validation study. Frontiers
in Neuroscience, 8, 229. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00229.
Pnevmatikakis, E. A. (2019). Analysis pipelines for calcium imaging data. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology, 55, 15–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2018.11.
004.
Pnevmatikakis, E. A., Soudry, D., Gao, Y., Machado, T. A., Merel, J., Pfau, D., et
al. (2016). Simultaneous denoising, deconvolution, and demixing of calcium
imaging data. Neuron, 89(2), 285–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.
2015.11.037.
Prut, Y., Vaadia, E., Bergman, H., Haalman, I., Slovin, H., & Abeles, M. (1998).
Spatiotemporal structure of cortical activity: Properties and behavioral relevance. Journal of Neurophysiology, 79(6), 2857–2874. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1152/jn.1998.79.6.2857.
Pulvermüller, F., Tomasello, R., Henningsen-Schomers, M. R., & Wennekers, T.
(2021). Biological constraints on neural network models of cognitive function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 22(8), 488–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
s41583-021-00473-5.
Raj, S., & Masood, S. (2020). Analysis and detection of autism spectrum disorder using machine learning techniques. Procedia Computer Science, 167,
994–1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.399.
Rajan, K., Harvey, C. D., & Tank, D. W. (2016). Recurrent network models of
sequence generation and memory. Neuron, 90(1), 128–142. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuron.2016.02.009.
Richards, B. A., Lillicrap, T. P., Beaudoin, P., Bengio, Y., Bogacz, R., Christensen, A.,
et al. (2019). A deep learning framework for neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 22(11), 1761–1770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0520-
2.
Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition
in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2(11), 1019–1025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
14819.
Rosenblatt, F. (1958). The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information
storage and organization in the brain. Psychological Review, 65(6), 386–408.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042519.
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning representations
by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323(6088), 533–536. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/323533a0.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel distributed processing. Volume
2: Psychological and biological models. MIT Press.
Ruppin, E., Reggia, J. A., & Horn, D. (1996). Pathogenesis of schizophrenic
delusions and hallucinations: A neural model. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 22(1),
105–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/22.1.105.
Salvatori, T., Song, Y., Lukasiewicz, T., Bogacz, R., & Xu, Z. (2021). Predictive
coding can do exact backpropagation on any neural network. ArXiv.
Sandberg, A., Tegnér, J., & Lansner, A. (2003). A working memory model based
on fast Hebbian learning. Network (Bristol, England), 14(4), 789–802.
Scellier, B., & Bengio, Y. (2017). Equilibrium propagation: Bridging the gap between energy-based models and backpropagation. Frontiers in Computational
Neuroscience, 11, 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2017.00024.
Schmidhuber, J. (2015). Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural
Networks, 61, 85–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003.
Schoenberg, P. L. A., & David, A. S. (2014). Biofeedback for psychiatric disorders: A
systematic review. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 39(2), 109–135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10484-014-9246-9.
Schrimpf, M., Kubilius, J., Hong, H., Majaj, N. J., Rajalingham, R., Issa, E. B., et al.
(2020). Brain-score: Which artificial neural network for object recognition is
most brain-like? http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/407007, BioRxiv, 407007.
Shen, G., Horikawa, T., Majima, K., & Kamitani, Y. (2019). Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity. PLoS Computational Biology, 15(1), Article
e1006633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006633.
Shimamura, A. P. (1995). Memory and the prefrontal cortex. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 769(1), 151–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-
6632.1995.tb38136.x.
Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 3(25), 289–310.
Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., et
al. (2016). Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree
search. Nature, 529(7587), 484–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature16961.
Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., et al.
(2018). A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi,
and Go through self-play. Science, 362(6419), 1140–1144. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1126/science.aar6404.
Soleimanitaleb, Z., Keyvanrad, M. A., & Jafari, A. (2019). Object tracking methods:
A review. In 2019 9th international conference on computer and knowledge
engineering (vol. 00) (pp. 282–288). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/iccke48569.
2019.8964761.
Soltanian-Zadeh, S., Sahingur, K., Blau, S., Gong, Y., & Farsiu, S. (2019). Fast and
robust active neuron segmentation in two-photon calcium imaging using
spatiotemporal deep learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
116(17), Article 201812995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812995116.
Song, H. F., Yang, G. R., & Wang, X.-J. (2016). Training excitatory-inhibitory
recurrent neural networks for cognitive tasks: A simple and flexible framework. PLoS Computational Biology, 12(2), Article e1004792. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004792.
Stevens, J. R. (1992). Abnormal reinnervation as a basis for schizophrenia: A
hypothesis. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49(3), 238–243. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1001/archpsyc.1992.01820030070009.
Sturman, O., von Ziegler, L., Schläppi, C., Akyol, F., Privitera, M., Slominski, D., et
al. (2020). Deep learning-based behavioral analysis reaches human accuracy
and is capable of outperforming commercial solutions. Neuropsychopharmacology, 45(11), 1942–1952. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-0776-
y.
Sun, J., Cao, R., Zhou, M., Hussain, W., Wang, B., Xue, J., et al. (2021). A hybrid
deep neural network for classification of schizophrenia using EEG Data.
Scientific Reports, 11(1), 4706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83350-
6.
Sussillo, D., & Abbott, L. F. (2009). Generating coherent patterns of activity from
chaotic neural networks. Neuron, 63(4), 544–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuron.2009.07.018.
Taherkhani, A., Belatreche, A., Li, Y., Cosma, G., Maguire, L. P., & McGinnity, T. M.
(2020). A review of learning in biologically plausible spiking neural networks.
Neural Networks, 122, 253–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2019.09.
036.
Tang, J., Yuan, F., Shen, X., Wang, Z., Rao, M., He, Y., et al. (2019). Bridging biological and artificial neural networks with emerging neuromorphic devices:
Fundamentals, progress, and challenges. Advanced Materials, 31(49), Article
1902761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adma.201902761.
Thomas, A. W., Heekeren, H. R., Müller, K.-R., & Samek, W. (2019). Analyzing
neuroimaging data through recurrent deep learning models. Frontiers in
Neuroscience, 13, 1321. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01321.
Thomas, M. S. C., Knowland, V. C., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2011). Mechanisms of
developmental regression in autism and the broader phenotype: A neural
network modeling approach. Psychological Review, 118(4), 637–654. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025234.
Todorov, M. I., Paetzold, J. C., Schoppe, O., Tetteh, G., Shit, S., Efremov, V., et al.
(2020). Machine learning analysis of whole mouse brain vasculature. Nature
Methods, 17(4), 442–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41592-020-0792-1.
Ullman, S. (2019). Using neuroscience to develop artificial intelligence. Science,
363(6428), 692–693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6595.
Uyulan, C., Ergüzel, T. T., Unubol, H., Cebi, M., Sayar, G. H., Asad, M. N., et al.
(2020). Major depressive disorder classification based on different convolutional neural network models: Deep learning approach. Clinical EEG and
Neuroscience, 52(1), 38–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1550059420916634.
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., et al.
(2017). Attention is all you need. ArXiv.
Verschae, R., & Ruiz-del-Solar, J. (2015). Object detection: Current and future
directions. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 2, 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.
2015.00029.
Vinyals, O., Babuschkin, I., Czarnecki, W. M., Mathieu, M., Dudzik, A., Chung, J., et
al. (2019). Grandmaster level in StarCraft II using multi-agent reinforcement
learning. Nature, 575(7782), 350–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-
1724-z.
von Ziegler, L., Sturman, O., & Bohacek, J. (2021). Big behavior: Challenges
and opportunities in a new era of deep behavior profiling. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(1), 33–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-0751-
7.
Wakefield, J. C. (2016). Diagnostic issues and controversies in DSM-5: Return of
the false positives problem. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12(1), 1–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112800.
612
T. Macpherson, A. Churchland, T. Sejnowski et al. Neural Networks 144 (2021) 603–613
Wasmuht, D. F., Spaak, E., Buschman, T. J., Miller, E. K., & Stokes, M. G.
(2018). Intrinsic neuronal dynamics predict distinct functional roles during
working memory. Nature Communications, 9(1), 3499. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/s41467-018-05961-4.
Watanabe, T., & Niki, H. (1985). Hippocampal unit activity and delayed response
in the monkey. Brain Research, 325(1–2), 241–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0006-8993(85)90320-8.
Weisenburger, S., & Vaziri, A. (2016). A guide to emerging technologies for largescale and whole-brain optical imaging of neuronal activity. Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 41(1), 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-
031458.
Whittington, J. C. R., & Bogacz, R. (2019). Theories of error back-propagation in
the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(3), 235–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.tics.2018.12.005.
Wiltschko, A. B., Johnson, M. J., Iurilli, G., Peterson, R. E., Katon, J. M.,
Pashkovski, S. L., et al. (2015). Mapping sub-second structure in mouse
behavior. Neuron, 88(6), 1121–1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.
11.031.
Wu, Q., McGinnity, T. M., Maguire, L., Cai, J., & Valderrama-Gonzalez, G. D.
(2008). Motion detection using spiking neural network model. (pp. 76–83).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85984-0_10.
Xu, K., Su, H., Zhut, J., Guan, J.-S., & Zhangt, B. (2016). Neuron segmentation
based on CNN with semi-supervised regularization. In 2016 IEEE conference
on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops (pp. 1324–1332). http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/cvprw.2016.167.
Xue, X., Halassa, M. M., & Chen, Z. S. (2021). Spiking recurrent neural networks
represent task-relevant neural sequences in rule-dependent computation.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.21.427464, BioRxiv, 2021.01.21.427464.
Yamada, T., Hashimoto, R., Yahata, N., Ichikawa, N., Yoshihara, Y., Okamoto, Y.,
et al. (2017). Resting-state functional connectivity-based biomarkers
and functional MRI-based neurofeedback for psychiatric disorders: A
challenge for developing theranostic biomarkers. International Journal
of Neuropsychopharmacology, 20(10), http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyx059,
pyx059-.
Yamashita, Y., & Tani, J. (2012). Spontaneous prediction error generation in
schizophrenia. PLoS One, 7(5), Article e37843. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0037843.
Yamins, D. L. K., & DiCarlo, J. J. (2016). Using goal-driven deep learning models
to understand sensory cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 19(3), 356–365. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.4244.
Yamins, D. L. K., Hong, H., Cadieu, C. F., Solomon, E. A., Seibert, D., & DiCarlo, J. J.
(2014). Performance-optimized hierarchical models predict neural responses
in higher visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
111(23), 8619–8624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403112111.
Yan, W., Calhoun, V., Song, M., Cui, Y., Yan, H., Liu, S., et al. (2019). Discriminating
schizophrenia using recurrent neural network applied on time courses of
multi-site FMRI data. EBioMedicine, 47, 543–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ebiom.2019.08.023.
Yang, G. R., Joglekar, M. R., Song, H. F., Newsome, W. T., & Wang, X.-J. (2019).
Task representations in neural networks trained to perform many cognitive
tasks. Nature Neuroscience, 22(2), 297–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41593-
018-0310-2.
Yang, W., & Yuste, R. (2017). In vivo imaging of neural activity. Nature Methods,
14(4), 349–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4230.
Yassin, W., Nakatani, H., Zhu, Y., Kojima, M., Owada, K., Kuwabara, H.,
et al. (2020). Machine-learning classification using neuroimaging data in
schizophrenia, autism, ultra-high risk and first-episode psychosis. Translational Psychiatry, 10(1), 278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41398-020-00965-
5.
Yin, B., Corradi, F., & Bohté, . S. M. (2020). Effective and efficient computation
with multiple-timescale spiking recurrent neural networks. ArXiv.
Yoshihara, Y., Lisi, G., Yahata, N., Fujino, J., Matsumoto, Y., Miyata, J., et al.
(2020). Overlapping but asymmetrical relationships between schizophrenia
and autism revealed by brain connectivity. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 46(5),
1210–1218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbaa021.
Zeng, L.-L., Wang, H., Hu, P., Yang, B., Pu, W., Shen, H., et al. (2018). Multi-site
diagnostic classification of schizophrenia using discriminant deep learning
with functional connectivity MRI. EBioMedicine, 30, 74–85. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.03.017.
Zhang, X.-Q., Jiang, R.-H., Fan, C.-X., Tong, T.-Y., Wang, T., & Huang, P.-C. (2021).
Advances in deep learning methods for visual tracking: Literature review
and fundamentals. International Journal of Automation and Computing, 18(3),
311–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11633-020-1274-8.
Zhou, P., Resendez, S. L., Rodriguez-Romaguera, J., Jimenez, J. C., Neufeld, S.
Q., Giovannucci, A., et al. (2018). Efficient and accurate extraction of in
vivo calcium signals from microendoscopic video data. ELife, 7, 3270. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.7554/elife.28728.
Zhou, Z., Wu, T.-C., Wang, B., Wang, H., Tu, X. M., & Feng, C. (2020). Machine
learning methods in psychiatry: A brief introduction. General Psychiatry,
33(1), Article e100171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2019-100171.
Zhu, G., Jiang, B., Tong, L., Xie, Y., Zaharchuk, G., & Wintermark, M. (2019).
Applications of deep learning to neuro-imaging techniques. Frontiers in
Neurology, 10(869), http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00869.
Zipser, D. (1991). Recurrent network model of the neural mechanism of shortterm active memory. Neural Computation, 3(2), 179–193. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1162/neco.1991.3.2.179.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgiYV_qJof_iG3Vfme-VO0SYYPzs1aybB5LTgE0xw-lYZ-B80MJMw9p2cefwChHUmES3FgIa_Zr3uk3tonjksLNddOSOTJjWre5kw84WPYA-nR_9fs3ldFzFiBAO2-0-cl-lRVmFBj5YJIlCoKkZqRMjyU7g00NqvKpPg=s0-d-e1-ft"")
