Top-down feedback matters: Functional impact of brainlike connectivity motifs on audiovisual integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are an important tool for studying neural computation, but many features of the brain are not captured by standard ANN architectures. One notable missing feature in most ANN models is top-down feedback, i.e. projections from higher-order layers to lower-order layers in the network. Top-down feedback is ubiquitous in the brain, and it has a unique modulatory impact on activity in neocortical pyramidal neurons. However, we still do not understand its computational role. Here we develop a deep neural network model that captures the core functional properties of top-down feedback in the neocortex, allowing us to construct hierarchical recurrent ANN models that more closely reflect the architecture of the brain. We use this to explore the impact of different hierarchical recurrent architectures on an audiovisual integration task. We find that certain hierarchies, namely those that mimic the architecture of the human brain, impart ANN models with a light visual bias similar to that seen in humans. This bias does not impair performance on the audiovisual tasks. The results further suggest that different configurations of top-down feedback make otherwise identically connected models functionally distinct from each other, and from traditional feedforward-only models. Altogether our findings demonstrate that modulatory top-down feedback is a computationally relevant feature of biological brains, and that incorporating it into ANNs affects their behavior and helps to determine the solutions that the network can discover.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".