MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206169982 · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2021.767461

Predictive Neuronal Adaptation as a Basis for Consciousness

2022· article· en· W4206169982 on OpenAlex
Artur Luczak, Yoshimasa Kubo

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Systems Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCompute Canada
KeywordsSurpriseConsciousnessComputer scienceAdaptation (eye)Artificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceNeural correlates of consciousnessNeuroscienceMachine learningPsychologyCognitionCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being able to correctly predict the future and to adjust own actions accordingly can offer a great survival advantage. In fact, this could be the main reason why brains evolved. Consciousness, the most mysterious feature of brain activity, also seems to be related to predicting the future and detecting surprise: a mismatch between actual and predicted situation. Similarly at a single neuron level, predicting future activity and adapting synaptic inputs accordingly was shown to be the best strategy to maximize the metabolic energy for a neuron. Following on these ideas, here we examined if surprise minimization by single neurons could be a basis for consciousness. First, we showed in simulations that as a neural network learns a new task, then the surprise within neurons (defined as the difference between actual and expected activity) changes similarly to the consciousness of skills in humans. Moreover, implementing adaptation of neuronal activity to minimize surprise at fast time scales (tens of milliseconds) resulted in improved network performance. This improvement is likely because adapting activity based on the internal predictive model allows each neuron to make a more "educated" response to stimuli. Based on those results, we propose that the neuronal predictive adaptation to minimize surprise could be a basic building block of conscious processing. Such adaptation allows neurons to exchange information about own predictions and thus to build more complex predictive models. To be precise, we provide an equation to quantify consciousness as the amount of surprise minus the size of the adaptation error. Since neuronal adaptation can be studied experimentally, this can allow testing directly our hypothesis. Specifically, we postulate that any substance affecting neuronal adaptation will also affect consciousness. Interestingly, our predictive adaptation hypothesis is consistent with multiple ideas presented previously in diverse theories of consciousness, such as global workspace theory, integrated information, attention schema theory, and predictive processing framework. In summary, we present a theoretical, computational, and experimental support for the hypothesis that neuronal adaptation is a possible biological mechanism of conscious processing, and we discuss how this could provide a step toward a unified theory of consciousness.

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)0.001
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 score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.217 · 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