Both the growing demand to cope with "big data" (based on, or assisted by, artificial intelligence) and the interest in understanding the operation of our brain more completely, stimulated the efforts to build biology-mimicking computing systems from inexpensive conventional components and build different ("neuromorphic") computing systems. On one side, those systems require an unusually large number of processors, which introduces performance limitations and nonlinear scaling. On the other side, the neuronal operation drastically differs from the conventional workloads. The conduction time (transfer time) is ignored in both in conventional computing and "spatiotemporal" computational models of neural networks, although von Neumann warned: "In the human nervous system the conduction times along the lines (axons) can be longer than the synaptic delays, hence our procedure of neglecting them aside of the processing time would be unsound" [1], section 6.3. This difference alone makes imitating biological behavior in technical implementation hard. Besides, the recent issues in computing called the attention to that the temporal behavior is a general feature of computing systems, too. Some of their effects in both biological and technical systems were already noticed. Instead of introducing some "looks like" models, the correct handling of the transfer time is suggested here. Introducing the temporal logic, based on the Minkowski transform, gives quantitative insight into the operation of both kinds of computing systems, furthermore provides a natural explanation of decades-old empirical phenomena. Without considering their temporal behavior correctly, neither effective implementation nor a true imitation of biological neural systems are possible.

Temporal-lobe epilepsy (TLE) is the most common type of drug-resistant epilepsy and warrants the development of new therapies, such as deep-brain stimulation (DBS). DBS was applied to different brain regions for patients with epilepsy; however, the mechanisms of action are not fully understood. Therefore, we tried to characterize the effect of amygdala DBS on hippocampal electrical activity in the lithium-pilocarpine model in male Wistar rats. After status epilepticus (SE) induction, seizure patterns were determined based on continuous video recordings. Recording electrodes were inserted in the left and right hippocampus and a stimulating electrode in the left basolateral amygdala of both Pilo and age-matched control rats 10 weeks after SE. Daily stimulation protocol consisted of 4 × 50 s stimulation trains (4-Hz, regular interpulse interval) for 10 days. The hippocampal electroencephalogram was analyzed offline: interictal epileptiform discharge (IED) frequency, spectral analysis, and phase-amplitude coupling (PAC) between delta band and higher frequencies were measured. We found that the seizure rate and duration decreased (by 23% and 26.5%) and the decrease in seizure rate correlated negatively with the IED frequency. PAC was elevated in epileptic animals and DBS reduced the pathologically increased PAC and increased the average theta power (25.9% ± 1.1 vs. 30.3% ± 1.1; p < 0.01). Increasing theta power and reducing the PAC could be two possible mechanisms by which DBS may exhibit its antiepileptic effect in TLE; moreover, they could be used to monitor effectiveness of stimulation.

No abstract

Neuroscience extensively uses the information theory to describe neural communication, among others, to calculate the amount of information transferred in neural communication and to attempt the cracking of its coding. There are fierce debates on how information is represented in the brain and during transmission inside the brain. The neural information theory attempts to use the assumptions of electronic communication; despite the experimental evidence that the neural spikes carry information on non-discrete states, they have shallow communication speed, and the spikes’ timing precision matters. Furthermore, in biology, the communication channel is active, which enforces an additional power bandwidth limitation to the neural information transfer. The paper revises the notions needed to describe information transfer in technical and biological communication systems. It argues that biology uses Shannon’s idea outside of its range of validity and introduces an adequate interpretation of information. In addition, the presented time-aware approach to the information theory reveals pieces of evidence for the role of processes (as opposed to states) in neural operations. The generalized information theory describes both kinds of communication, and the classic theory is the particular case of the generalized theory.

Information is commonly considered as a mathematical quantity that forms the basis of computing. In mathematics, information can propagate instantly, so its transfer speed is not the subject of information science. In all kinds of implementations of computing, whether technological or biological, some material carrier for the information exists, so the information&rsquo;s propagation speed cannot exceed the speed of the carrier. Because of this limitation, for any implementation, one must consider the transfer time between computing units. We need a different mathematical method to take this limitation into account: classic mathematics can only describe infinitely fast and infinitely small computing system implementations. The difference between the mathematical handling methods leads to different descriptions of the behavior of the systems. The correct handling also explains why biological implementations can have lifelong learning and technological ones cannot. The conclusion about learning evidences matches others&rsquo; experimental evidence, both in technological and biological computing.