scholarly journals Clonal Relationships Impact Neuronal Tuning within a Phylogenetically Ancient Vertebrate Brain Structure

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (16) ◽  
pp. 1929-1933 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair M. Muldal ◽  
Timothy P. Lillicrap ◽  
Blake A. Richards ◽  
Colin J. Akerman
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahar Avin ◽  
Adrian Currie ◽  
Stephen H. Montgomery

AbstractComparisons of vertebrate brain structure suggest a conserved pattern of scaling between components, but also many examples of lineages diverging dramatically from these general trends. Two competing hypotheses of brain evolution seek to explain these patterns of variation by invoking either ‘external’ processes, such as selection driving phenotypic change, or ‘internal’ processes, like developmental coupling among brain regions. Efforts to reconcile these views remain deadlocked, in part due to empirical under-determination and the limitations of ‘relative significance’ debates. We introduce an agent-based model that allows us to simulate brain evolution in a ‘bare-bones’ system and examine the dependencies between variables that may shape brain evolution. Our simulations formalise verbal arguments and interpretations concerning the evolution of brain structure. We illustrate that ‘concerted’ patterns of brain evolution cannot alone be taken as evidence for developmental coupling, or constraint, despite these terms often being treated as synonymous in the literature. Both developmentally coupled and uncoupled brain architectures can represent adaptive mechanisms, depending on the distribution of selection across the brain, life history, and the relative costs of neural tissue. Our model also illustrates how the prevalence of mosaic and concerted patterns of evolution may fluctuate through time in a variable environment, which we argue implies that developmental coupling is unlikely to be a significant evolutionary constraint.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Ross

AbstractUse of network models to identify causal structure typically blocks reduction across the sciences. Entanglement of mental processes with environmental and intentional relationships, as Borsboom et al. argue, makes reduction of psychology to neuroscience particularly implausible. However, in psychiatry, a mental disorder can involve no brain disorder at all, even when the former crucially depends on aspects of brain structure. Gambling addiction constitutes an example.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Gallistel

Abstract Shannon's theory lays the foundation for understanding the flow of information from world into brain: There must be a set of possible messages. Brain structure determines what they are. Many messages convey quantitative facts (distances, directions, durations, etc.). It is impossible to consider how neural tissue processes these numbers without first considering how it encodes them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document