Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?

Abstract

There is a popular belief in neuroscience that we are primarily data limited, and that producing large, multimodal, and complex datasets will, with the help of advanced data analysis algorithms, lead to fundamental insights into the way the brain processes information. These datasets do not yet exist, and if they did we would have no way of evaluating whether or not the algorithmically-generated insights were sufficient or even correct. To address this, here we take a classical microprocessor as a model organism, and use our ability to perform arbitrary experiments on it to see if popular data analysis methods from neuroscience can elucidate the way it processes information. Microprocessors are among those artificial information processing systems that are both complex and that we understand at all levels, from the overall logical flow, via logical gates, to the dynamics of transistors. We show that the approaches reveal interesting structure in the data but do not meaningfully describe the hierarchy of information processing in the microprocessor. This suggests current analytic approaches in neuroscience may fall short of producing meaningful understanding of neural systems, regardless of the amount of data. Additionally, we argue for scientists using complex non-linear dynamical systems with known ground truth, such as the microprocessor as a validation platform for time-series and structure discovery methods. Author SummaryNeuroscience is held back by the fact that it is hard to evaluate if a conclusion is correct; the complexity of the systems under study and their experimental inaccessability make the assessment of algorithmic and data analytic technqiues challenging at best. We thus argue for testing approaches using known artifacts, where the correct interpretation is known. Here we present a microprocessor platform as one such test case. We find that many approaches in neuroscience, when used naïvely, fall short of producing a meaningful understanding.

Degeneracy in hippocampal physiology and plasticity

“…Larger perturbations beyond the black circle, however, would not yield robust functionality. The presence of multiple clusters of red circles in the smaller scale represents degeneracy, where similar functionality is achieved if parameters are within any of those multiple clusters [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] Bickle, 2015;Jazayeri & Afraz, 2017;Jonas & Kording, 2017;Kandel et al, 2014;Katz, 2016;Kim & Linden, 2007;Krakauer et al, 2017;Lazebnik, 2002;Marder, 1998;Marder, 2011;Marder, 2012;Marder, O'Leary, & Shruti, 2014;Marder & Thirumalai, 2002;Mayford et al, 2012;Panzeri et al, 2017;Tytell, Holmes, & Cohen, 2011), and will not be the focus of this review.…”

Integrative Modeling of Prefrontal Cortex

“…However, the sheer proliferation of data, in type and in quantity, tends to resist easy integration, sometimes resulting in the attempt of imposing some degree of order on an otherwise chaotic landscape through sufficiently sophisticated analyses and machine learning methods (although it remains unclear how effective these approaches are at recovering function; Jonas & Kording, 2016). In attempting to uncover the principles underlying brain function, then, it is necessary to negotiate between competing demands: The range of data incorporated should be sufficiently broad to specify a general underlying mechanism, yet not so broad as to render integration unlikely.…”

Foundations of human problem solving

“…Value-based decision-making and goaldirected behavior involve a number of interacting brain regions, but how these regions might work together computationally to generate goal directed actions remains unclear. This may be due in part a lack of mechanistic theoretical frameworks (4,5). The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) may represent both a cognitive map (6) and a flexible goal value representation (7), driving actions based on expected outcomes (8), though how these guide action selection is still unclear.…”