MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107175997 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2005087117

A goal-driven modular neural network predicts parietofrontal neural dynamics during grasping

2020· article· en· W3107175997 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsModular designTask (project management)MacaqueComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceDynamics (music)NeuroscienceAction (physics)PsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the primary ways we interact with the world is using our hands. In macaques, the circuit spanning the anterior intraparietal area, the hand area of the ventral premotor cortex, and the primary motor cortex is necessary for transforming visual information into grasping movements. However, no comprehensive model exists that links all steps of processing from vision to action. We hypothesized that a recurrent neural network mimicking the modular structure of the anatomical circuit and trained to use visual features of objects to generate the required muscle dynamics used by primates to grasp objects would give insight into the computations of the grasping circuit. Internal activity of modular networks trained with these constraints strongly resembled neural activity recorded from the grasping circuit during grasping and paralleled the similarities between brain regions. Network activity during the different phases of the task could be explained by linear dynamics for maintaining a distributed movement plan across the network in the absence of visual stimulus and then generating the required muscle kinematics based on these initial conditions in a module-specific way. These modular models also outperformed alternative models at explaining neural data, despite the absence of neural data during training, suggesting that the inputs, outputs, and architectural constraints imposed were sufficient for recapitulating processing in the grasping circuit. Finally, targeted lesioning of modules produced deficits similar to those observed in lesion studies of the grasping circuit, providing a potential model for how brain regions may coordinate during the visually guided grasping of objects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it