[Comp-neuro] High level abstractions in concept cells; Single spiking neurons have "meaning" and are actually at the cognitive level?

Dorian Aur dorianaur at gmail.com
Fri Aug 19 21:16:43 CEST 2011


(i) I have asked Moran Cerf to present an extension to their analyzes  and *he
(ii) The general comments  regarding* the novel discovery* were already
disclosed  on the web see
(iii) You  *have completely misinformed* (regarding my comments about little
information in the firing rate) and the discussion about ethics *is meant to
cover  the unpleasant scientific truth regarding the  unreliable firing rate


2011/8/19 Asim Roy <ASIM.ROY at asu.edu>

> To All Mailing Lists,****
> ** **
> Please do not post these private discussions without the permission of
> those who are cited. Dorian Aur must be a desperate scientist. Here is part
> of another note I sent to our private discussion list on concept cells and
> spiking neurons.****
> ** **
> “All,****
> ** **
> Please don’t respond to Dorian Aur anymore. You never know when he is going
> to post your comments on some public mailing list without your permission.
> He has no ethics. And I think we have had enough of a discussion on his
> theory that firing rates and spike timing interval has no meaning. I have
> repeatedly asked him to explain the results of Moran Cerf experiments using
> his theory and he is unable to do so. I think we had enough.****
> ** **
> By the way, for those who were not at the IJCNN talk by Moran Cerf, Dorian
> Aur interrupted Moran’s talk, took out his IJCNN poster and started talking.
> I had to stop him after a while so that Moran could continue.****
> ** **
> Asim”****
> ** **
> ** **
> *From:* Dorian Aur [mailto:dorianaur at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 11:18 AM
> *To:* Asim Roy
> *Cc:* Connectionists at cs.cmu.edu; cogsci at psych.colorado.edu;
> agents at cs.umbc.edu; ai at dcs.qmul.ac.uk;
> aiia_announcements at penelope.csd.auth.gr; COGPSY at listserv.tamu.edu;
> comp-neuro at neuroinf.org; spp-misc at philebus.tamu.edu;
> comp-neuro-owner at neuroinf.org; Walter J Freeman; Dr. Bernard Widrow;
> Taylor, John; Jay McClelland; Kunihiko FUKUSHIMA; Nikola Kasabov; Fredric
> Ham; rkozma at memphis.edu; dfilev at ford.com; Risto Miikkulainen; Jacek M
> Zurada; Carlo Francesco Morabito; Srinivasa, Narayan; Klaus Obermayer;
> George Lendaris; Kenji Doya; Evangelia Micheli-Tzanakou; Danil Prokhorov;
> Jose Principe; Lee Giles; bruno apolloni; Ronald R. Yager; Thomas Caudell;
> DeLiang Wang; Richard M Golden; Marley Vellasco; Amir Atiya; Sarangapani,
> Jagannathan; Kevin Logan; Ivette Luna Huamani; Emilio Del Moral Hernandez;
> José Alfredo F. Costa; Roseli Aparecida Francelin Romero; Khan M
> Iftekharuddin (iftekhar); Yaochu.Jin at surrey.ac.uk; Chiranjib
> Bhattacharyya; Marimuthu Swami Palaniswami; Salim Bouzerdoum;
> mjhealy at ece.unm.edu; OZAWA, Seiichi; Nikolik; richard at udc.es; José García;
> Adel M. Alimi; spang at aut.ac.nz; p.angelov at lancaster.ac.uk;
> syxie at nwpu.edu.cn; Ivan Aquino; Venayagamoorthy, Ganesh K.; Prasad
> Girijesh; Leon Reznik; Ricardo Sanz; Pascual Campoy; Tao Ban;
> rich.hammett at gatech.edu; Wlodzislaw Duch; Edgar.Koerner at honda-ri.de;
> yamauchi at cs.chubu.ac.jp; sasi001 at gannon.edu; priyanka2309 at gmail.com;
> bailly at isir.fr; Nistor.Grozavu at lipn.univ-paris13.fr; hmeng at lincoln.ac.uk;
> parena at diees.unict.it; rharley at ee.gatech.edu; anne at dimap.ufrn.br;
> ahunter at lincoln.ac.uk; kappiah at lincoln.ac.uk; okada_s at i.kyoto-u.ac.jp;
> hahosoya at is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp; fredrik.sandin at gmail.com;
> nils at siebel-research.de; rwindecker at aol.com; marco.piastra at unipv.it;
> tamas.jantvik at ltu.se; petia at ua.pt; perdi at kzoo.edu; dwunsch at mst.edu;
> Mustapha Lebbah; Juyang Weng; Ravi Rao; Professor Ron Sun; Yan Meng; Minoru
> Asada; ali.minai at uc.edu; leonid at hrl.harvard.edu; Janusz Starzyk; Angelo
> Cangelosi; Giorgio Metta; Pierre-Yves Oudeyer; hussain at ieee.org;
> rolf.wuertz at ini.rub.de; elexujx at nus.edu.sg; Janusz Starzyk;
> fred at ini.phys.ethz.ch; bntlyb at gmail.com; mauro.tucci at dsea.unipi.it;
> rim at cse.snu.ac.kr; dick.botteldooren at intec.ugent.be;
> Damiano.Oldoni at ugent.be; mlovric at rsm.nl; p.wawrzynski at elka.pw.edu.pl;
> norifumi at tamagawa.ac.jp; tgibbons at css.edu; i.nica at surrey.ac.uk;
> harry.erwin at btinternet.com; anhngv102 at gmail.com; swban at dongguk.ac.kr;
> lperl at rcn.com; ogchang at gmail.com; red51 at epsam.keele.ac.uk;
> m.Lukosevicius at jacobs-university.de; yjchou at mail.ndhu.edu.tw;
> christian.faubel at ini.rub.de; jzhu at fias.uni-frankfurt.de; Sylvie Renaud;
> chicca at ini.phys.ethz.ch; Giacomo Indiveri; Gelenbe, Erol;
> paolo.mottoros at polito.it; corazza at unive.it; aurel at ieee.org;
> anna.esposito at unina2.it; bertoni at dsi.unimi.it; masulli at disi.unige.it;
> mirko.esposit at gmail.com; re at dsi.unimi.it; bassis at dsi.unimi.it;
> mirko.lucchese at gmail.com; lorenzo.valerio at gmail.com;
> michele.scarpiniti at uniroma1.it; micheli at di.unipi.it;
> paolo.delgiudice at iss.infn.it; dlester at cs.man.ac.uk; Alexander Rast;
> Rodrigo Calvo; Dileep George; emad_andrews at yahoo.com;
> harry.barrow at cantab.net; butz at psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de;
> markcavanagh at mac.com; frederic.dandurand at gmail.com; choe at tamu.edu;
> suashdeb at gmail.com; fuji at cc.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp; egasca at ittoluca.edu.mx;
> sergio.c.gigli at gmail.com; goren at gorengordon.com; mhagan at ieee.org;
> kiwhilario at gmail.com; holst-inns at cutisan.dk; ito at aichi-med-u.ac.jp;
> rk.jones at comcast.net; rpvnkr at gmail.com; vincent.lemaire at orange-ftgroup.com;
> naiyan at dca.ufrn.br; matsuda.satoshi at nihon-u.ac.jp;
> matsugu.masakazu at canon.co.jp; monaco_frank at hotmail.com;
> nakayama at t.kanazawa-u.ac.jp; guillermo.navarro at hp.com;
> barry.nichols at my.westminster.ac.uk; oliver.obst at csiro.au;
> david_olmsted at sbcglobal.net; d.palmer-brown at londonmet.ac.uk;
> paslasks at gmail.com; perroneantonioluigi at gmail.com;
> kpeterson at wesleyancollege.edu; vincenzo.piuri at unimi.it; hery at ee.its.ac.id;
> nrose at swin.edu.au; fabio.ruini at plymouth.ac.uk; skaggs at ix.netcom.com;
> ventura at cs.byu.edu; walkert at ohiodominican.edu; arniew1 at gte.net;
> arsenecorneliu at yahoo.co.uk; uawret at gmu.edu;
> fatma.hamdi at lipn.univ-paris13.fr; nicoleta.rogovschi at parisdescartes.fr;
> mconfort at stevens.edu; s.notley at surrey.ac.uk; srini at ms.uky.edu;
> matsui at eng.u-hyogo.ac.jp; haru at ai.u-hyogo.ac.jp;
> rakia.jaziri at lipn.univ-paris13.fr; hhazano at cs.haifa.ac.il;
> hsichtig at ufl.edu; byadarkv at mail.uc.edu; sechelian at hrl.com;
> mholee at knu.ac.kr; cmviney at sandia.gov; daviess at cs.man.ac.uk;
> anya.getman at gmail.com; hughesjg at pdx.edu; lanzcc at potsdam.edu;
> eugenius at nacced.ufrj.br; begemenozkan at gmail.com;
> frederic.simard at mail.mcgill.ca; francesco.galluppi at cs.man.ac.uk;
> magnus.swg at gmail.com; aml.jyo at 0sg.net;
> kevin.brohan at postgrad.manchester.ac.uk; m.s.rowan at cs.bham.ac.uk;
> byan at tamu.edu; beljan8389 at gmail.com; rohitash_c at yahoo.com;
> bhaishahster at gmail.com; bjtf at econp.poli.br; michaelsick at gmail.com;
> pape at idsia.ch; bribeiro at dei.uc.pt; tatiana at unipi.gz; edvardo.gomez at ulsa.mx;
> luna_juanc at yahoo.com.mx; gary.garciam at gmail.com; laxmi.r.iyer at gmail.com;
> sp.sadeghi at gmail.com; r.khosrowabadi at gmail.com;
> kiruthika_r at dsi.a-star.edu.sg; peng.pli at gmail.com; juancvl at gmail.com;
> Christof Koch; John Collins; jeff bowers; Peter Foldiak;
> moran at morancerf.com; Yoonsuck Choe; plaut at cmu.edu; Moran; ja+ at cmu.edu;
> markman at psy.utexas.edu; Tim Rogers; Rick Cooper; ifried at mednet.ucla.edu;
> Asher Evans; rqqg1 at le.ac.uk; a.kraskov at ion.ucl.ac.uk; Noel Sharkey;
> hava at cs.umass.edu; Steven Bressler
> *Subject:* Re: [Comp-neuro] High level abstractions in concept cells;
> Single spiking neurons have "meaning" and are actually at the cognitive
> level?****
> ** **
> Asim,
> I feel that it is our goal to pursue *the truth in science*  and  the
> "truth" should not be an "insult" to any scientist. A larger list can
> increase interactions between scientists and a better chance to find the
> truth.
> To summarize the  previous discussion:
> (i)*Quiroga et al. 2007 have "shown the concept" relationship* not Moran
> Cerf (see Dr. Koch statement!)
> (ii)The proposed *"concept* neuron" by Moran Cerf group  is similar to the
> *gnostic* neuron model presented by Konorski *in the early 1960s (La même
> Jeannette* autrement coiffée) it is not a *novel discovery *
> 1. First there is no "Jennifer  Aniston" (JA) neuron. The same neuron  has
> to respond to many other presented objects (otherwise is a *grandmother
> cell*) . Therefore, Quiroga et al.,  have extensively filtered the data to
> obtain this outcome (Quiroga et al. 2005) --details can be provided.  When
> you record 10^3 neurons, have complex random temporal patterns  and use
> statistics with  an ambiguous measure (firing rate) that *provides little
> information*  everything becomes possible.
> 2. Even when this neuron responds to JA *it may in fact respond to
> different other features *that are present in those images, however the
> firing rate measure *is not sensitive enough to detect these subtle aspect
> *s
> 3. Very important, a strong firing rate to JA may indicate a reorganization
> triggered   when JA is repeatedly  presented not JA concept
> 4. To get *reliable semantics* from experimental data a direct
> relationship with *"memory*" has to be extracted . Spike directivity
> provides directly this relationship since it relates specific information
> with the  *topography of analyzed neuron .* See the difference between the
> spider presentation  and JA presentation  (
> http://neuroelectrodynamics.blogspot.com/p/spike-directivity.html)
> specific  parts of the neuron are active . Based on firing rate one cannot
> distinguish between spider and JA (the firing rate is 8Hz ) in both cases
> 5. The reorganization always occurs in repetitive tasks and can change the
> neuronal response. It is unlikely to extract from an experiment *the
> entire* "blond women" (*the concept*) from a single neuron.
> Dorian
> ****
> 2011/8/19 Asim Roy <ASIM.ROY at asu.edu>****
> It is really unethical for Dorian Aur to post a part of a private
> discussion on concept cells and spiking neurons based on some perhaps
> breakthrough findings in the lab of Dr. Izthak Fried at UCLA and which
> involves Dr. Christof Koch and others at Caltech. We have been discussing
> these findings in our own discussion list for over two months now and to
> take one such email and post it on several mailing lists is an insult to all
> of us. I would appeal to all mailing lists that have not posted this note
> yet to desist from doing so. Dorian Aur didn’t get our permission to post
> this. I wish Comp-neuro, being a moderated list, had checked with us since
> we are cited on this note. Dorian Aur is just trying to promote his point of
> view in this post. We have had a full discussion of these issues directly
> with him for quite some time and he seems to have a losing argument that
> firing rates (inter-spike interval, temporal code) has no useful
> information.****
>  ****
> Asim Roy****
> Arizona State University****
> www.lifeboat.com/ex/bios.asim.roy****
>  ****
>  ****
> *From:* comp-neuro-bounces at neuroinf.org [mailto:
> comp-neuro-bounces at neuroinf.org] *On Behalf Of *Dorian Aur
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:54 PM
> *To:* Connectionists at cs.cmu.edu; cogsci at psych.colorado.edu;
> agents at cs.umbc.edu; ai at dcs.qmul.ac.uk;
> aiia_announcements at penelope.csd.auth.gr; COGPSY at listserv.tamu.edu;
> comp-neuro at neuroinf.org; spp-misc at philebus.tamu.edu;
> comp-neuro-owner at neuroinf.org
> *Subject:* [Comp-neuro] High level abstractions in concept cells; Single
> spiking neurons have "meaning" and are actually at the cognitive level?***
> *
>  ****
> Asim, your idea to add together various scientists with similar interests
> represents an important step to trigger a debate that can  indeed solve
> current issues regarding data analysis and the nature of neural code.****
> I’ve had myself the privilege to analyze some  excellent recordings from Dr
> Fried lab. In general it is an exception to get four good neurons where
> spike directivity (SD) can be  computed (the electrodes need to be together
> in a tetrode configuration). Dr Fried I’m really impressed, excellent
> recordings! Therefore  in an attempt of  *pursuing the truth *I have
> analyzed some of these recordings from a different perspective *and *took
> the liberty to *post it here the outcome.*****
> *Dorian’s summary of some issues in interpreting temporal coding -
> includes notes from **Dr. Itzhak Fried and Christof Koch, **Quian Quiroga,
> **Walter Freeman*****
> *1.*       Work on brain-machine interfaces based on single-neuron
> activity is quite standard now and being pursued by a number of groups.***
> *
> *Itzhak Fried: I would not describe BMI using single neuron activity as
> quite standard. Most of the existing data is with frontal/motor or parietal
> neuron.*****
> *Christof:** Yes. Most such BMI operate in motor, pre-motor and parietal
> cortex. *****
> *Dorian :*There are several issues in interpreting single neuron activity
> using the  firing rate or interspike interval. Several  important details
> are  missing  in temporal patterns (see
> http://dx.doi.org./10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.05.003;
> http://dx.doi.org./10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.05.006  and  the book
> Neuroelectrodynamics: Understanding the Brain Language,
> http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-473-3-i for a model of computation)
> which are important in information coding****
> *2.*       Concept cells are comparable to place cells in rodents (concept
> cells = place cells) and therefore not a finding that surprises the
> neuroscience community.****
> *Itzhak Fried: Concept cells are not place cells but I proposed that they
> can be viewed as "place cells" in a different "attribute or feature space".
> They do share with place cells coding properties, that is: specificity ,
> invariance, sparseness and the explicit nature of the code. One can
> speculate that the mechanism developed for coding of space in rodent
> hippocampus  has evolved to accommodate more elaborate abstraction in
> humans. As for "surprises", it is difficult to surprise the neuroscience
> community, but for us the explicit nature of the code on the single neuron
> level was a surprise.*****
> *Christof:** There are some similarities to place cells in rodents.
> However, we find these highly selective cells in all regions of the MTL, not
> just the hippocampus.  How far this comparison goes is not clear (what, for
> example, is the analog of grid cells in the entorhinal cortex?)*****
> *Dorian:** *Different experiments in rats or humans show strong
> similarities that can provide meaningful explanation for these data.
> However, an understanding of presented examples cannot solely come from a
> firing rate analysis. A relevant example shows how neurons operate during  a
> T-maze procedural learning task. (D Aur, and M Jog,  Reading the Neural
> Code: What do Spikes Mean for Behavior?. Available from Nature Precedings <
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2007.61.1, 2007)****
> The "expert" neurons in striatum during  T-maze learning provide a similar
> behavior,  however *they  extensively fire only before learning*. In order
> to understand the meaning of their firing activity a different measure was
> computed and analyzed. *Spike directivity* is a vector that reflects the
> distribution of electrical patterns in recorded spikes. During learning
> these  "expert" neurons reduce their firing rate. After one week of training
> the neurons generate only few spikes between the tone and  turn starts.
>  This represents the critical moment when the decision regarding turning is
> taken.  After training these “expert” neurons show less random  spike
> directivities  (a preferred direction of AP propagation)than before
> training . The delivered spikes after  the tone  predict the turning
> direction on the T-maze. In many cases the firing rate cannot be estimated
> (one spike in single trials)
> *The first counterexample: *When it fires the same neuron can code for the
> left turn or for the right turn depending on the context (high or low  tone,
> the T-maze task,
> http://neuroelectrodynamics.blogspot.com/p/spike-directivity.html ).  ****
> *The second counterexample:* The same neuron responds with the same firing
> rate for two different  objects (spider, Jennifer Aniston) the difference
> occurs  in the preferred spike directivity (see
> http://neuroelectrodynamics.blogspot.com/p/spike-directivity.html).****
> The outcome in spike directivity is a counterexample for temporal coding.
> *The spikes cannot be added since they provide different semantics (apples
> and oranges). That’s the beauty of counterexamples. You only need one single
> counterexample to throw down a "solid"theoretical construct  of temporal
> coding. No need  for other examples that reinforce the  temporal coding!**
> ***
> In this case:
> (i) During learning several options are explored and the  *strong firing
> rate reflects uncertainty in these “expert” neurons.  Therefore, we
> hypothesized that strong firing (with strong variability of spike
> directivity) represents a way * to search for a  correct solution during
> learning
> (ii) After learning all these cells provide an efficient response with only
> few spikes for the same event.****
> (iii) The *reduction in uncertainty generates a meaningful outcome* that
> can be observed in a preferred direction of spike directivity
> Therefore, *a decrease of uncertainty  is reflected in a reduced number of
> spikes delivered by a cell, an efficient response*. Contrary to current
> belief an increase in the firing rate *may show uncertainty*,  a
> searching  process required to deliver a solution.****
> Following  a similar analysis,  the cells from MTL can display a similar
> behavior. If two different objects are presented they can be separated  fast
> in these neurons  since they generate different spike
> directivity orientations (see
> http://neuroelectrodynamics.blogspot.com/p/spike-directivity.html). ****
> *3.*       The concept cells were found in different regions. For example,
> “James Brolin” in right hippocampus, “Venus Williams” in left hippocampus,
> “Marilyn Monroe” in left parahippocampal cortex, “Michael Jackson” in right
> amygdala.****
> *Itzhak Fried: Yes, but they may represent different levels of abstraction
> or invariance in each of these regions. Although they were found in
> different MTL regions , the highest degree of invariance (across modalities)
> was in hippocampus and entorhinal cortex . Also remember the latency of the
> response,  usually around 350 msec.*****
> *Christof:** Yes*****
> *Dorian :I*ntracellularly  within molecular structure specific information
> is "read" and "written" in these cells  during AP generation . In order to
> have the concept of "Jennifer Aniston" information from many cells is
> inferred synaptically and non-synaptically. Therefore, many neurons fire
> almost simultaneously in different brain regions  (MTL hippocampus ,
> entorhinal cortex) ****
> (i)                 However, a  too strong  increase of firing rate may
> show high uncertainty - a searching process required to identify the
> presented  object. ****
> (ii)               In order to represent a particular feature associated
> with  a certain presented image (e.g. Jennifer Aniston) these neuron can
> generate low firing rate with consistent  preferred spike directivity****
> (iii)             The semantics do not appear  in the firing rate!!! (ISI)
> therefore statistical analyzes  of firing rate (ISI)  can be highly
> irrelevant to determine the meaning of firing. The same neuron can code for
> different features in different spikes depending on presented context.****
>  ****
> *4.*       The sister cells (e.g. other Jennifer Aniston concept cells)
> are not necessarily in contiguous locations in the brain. They could be in
> different hemispheres and different regions within a hemisphere. (“The
> subject most likely activated a large pool of neurons selective to ‘Johnny
> Cash’ even though the feedback was only based on just one such unit. We
> identified 8 such units in a total of 7 subjects.”)****
> *Itzhak Fried: The sister cell may be  a confusing term, but a major point
> is that organization of "concept cells"  is not columnar or topographic.
> Given their sparse and nontopographic distribution  it would be difficult to
> trace them on fMRI.*****
> *Dorian: *There is little information in the temporal code (firing rate,
> ISI)
> Based solely on firing rate (ISI) analyses it is very hard to figure out
>  the role of certain spikes ( see the counterexample where the same neuron
> provides different semantics when it fires
> http://precedings.nature.com/documents/61/version/1) .* *****
> *5.*       Even though a million cells are activated by an image of
> Jennifer Aniston, and say 12 of them are Jennifer Aniston concept cells, in
> your experiments, you tracked only one such concept cell and* that was
> good enough*.* There was no need to “read out” other Jennifer Aniston
> concept cells*, wherever they were,* as would be required in a distributed
> representation framework*.****
> *Itzhak Fried: Yes. But I  suspect more than a million cells are activated
> by Jennifer Aniston and they could probably be arranged on a variance scale
> with our "concept cells" at the extreme low. Still it is easier to find a
> concept cell than a Higg's boson.*****
> *Christof:** We have no idea whether J. Aniston activates a million of
> such cells. Yes, the movie of the superimposed images was based on four
> selective units of a presumably much larger pool. It is well possible that
> if we had recorded from more sister neurons, control would have been swifter
> or more precise or more reliable.*****
> *Dorian: *****
> (i)These cells do not fire only for Jennifer Aniston as presented in
> Quiroga et al., 2005. (ii) In different contexts they should   fire for
> different presented objects (see
> http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5345/version/2).
> (iii) A strong  increase  in the firing rate  may show a different process
> (iv)If spike directivity points randomly in space then the  strong increase
> in firing rate display uncertainty, an ongoing  “searching” process to
> associate different presented features
> (v)The efficient coding of a particular feature associated with Jennifer
> Aniston  needs to provide a consistent preferred spike directivity. This
> outcome is determined by a  consistent intracellular location of particular
> "memories" and is revealed using spike directivity or imaging the spike.
> (see http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5345/version/2 or
> http://neuroelectrodynamics.blogspot.com/p/spike-directivity.html)****
> 6.       In your image control experiments, where the subject focused on
> one of two images on a computer screen to enhance its visibility (a target
> vs. a distractor image)* by “thinking” about it* (the target image),* the
> subjects were able to control and modulate the activity of the concept units
> selective to specific images*. “Thinking” in this case might simply imply
> invoking some images from memory of the target concept (e.g. Jennifer
> Aniston) and that might also imply the “internal assignment” of meaning to
> the target concept cells. (This is a tenuous argument. Wish we could also
> say that the concept cell activates the “memories,” thereby providing
> linkage both ways.)****
> *Itzhak Fried:  Read the Science 2008 paper by Gelbard -Sagiv, Mukamel,
> Harel, Malach and Fried where you will see how such cell (firing selectively
> to the actual sight of a 10 sec video of the Simpson's, as one example ) is
> reactivated just before (1.2 sec)  the patient reports the recollection.**
> ***
> *Christof:** The cognitive or neuronal processes underlying the voluntary
> control seen in these fading experiments are unclear. Personally, I think
> they are closer to object based attention than to memory but this remains to
> be proven.*****
> *Dorian: *I was particularly interested by  the *Simpson *example,  even
> stopped the presentation to show that  this specific cell  has fired  for
> different other images with low firing rate. If during the increase in
> firing rate the computed  spike directivities show  outcome then this case
> can be a typical example where the neuron  is “searching” for a solution.
> Since  other* different  neurons may activate the recollection* *the
>  re-searching process can be triggered.  I feel that this neuron will not
> provide  stable high firing rate longer time in this case (*over one week
> of repeated Simpson presentation*).    **If spike directivity is less
>  random then indeed this particular neuron can embed some  features
>  associated to Simpson. Information  is “read” or “written” in this cell
> during these spikes and  the cell  may contribute to form the Simpson
> abstraction( however not alone!).*****
> 7.       Here’s an interesting conclusion from Waydo, Kraskov, Quiroga,
> Fried and Koch (The Journal of Neuroscience, 2006):
> “Instead, it would imply that rather than a single neuron responding to
> dozens of stimuli out of a universe of tens of thousands,* such a neuron
> might respond to only one or a few stimuli out of perhaps hundreds currently
> being tracked by this memory system*, still with millions of neurons being
> activated by a typical stimulus. These results are consistent with Barlow’s
> (1972) claim that “at the upper levels of the hierarchy,* a relatively
> small proportion [of neurons] are active, and each of these says a lot when
> it is active*,” and his further speculation that the “*aim of information
> processing in higher sensory centers is to represent the input as completely
> as possible by activity in as few neurons as possible*” (Barlow, 1972).”**
> **
> *Itzhak Fried: When I proposed the term "concept cells" for the unique
> group of cells we found in hippocampus and neighbouring MTL structures it
> was with the intention of provoking such diuscussions, but using the
> nomenclature we should not be carried away by the hype of the terminology
> and lose sight of the data.(I do agree with Freeman's cautionary note re
> "meaning"). Do not forget that these cells are at the heart of the
> declarative memory system of MTL and thus  signify the transformation of
> percepts into what can be later consciously recollected.* ****
> *The intriguing question is how these cells are formed and change. We know
> patients form these cells to the experimenters over a day or so.  We are
> currently completing  a study which will provide some relevant data.*****
> *Christof:** Yes, Horace Barlow's 1972 paper was very forward looking and
> deserves to be widely read and cited. *The efficiency in processing
> information is the main goal of the brain, therefore the process of  object
> recognition is optimized in these cells that respond  which a decrease in
> firing rate and a “specialization” of involved neurons that carries specific
> features ****
> *Quian Quiroga*****
> Asim, thanks for triggering this interesting discussion.****
> Yes, I do believe these cells encode meaning. We say this explicitly in a
> TiCS paper (at the end of the section before the Conclusion).****
> *From Walter Freeman*****
> Your paraphrase is ambiguous. "Concept cells" certainly have meaning for
> observers, but do they express and transmit meaning within the brain of the
> subject to other parts of the brain? In other words, how in a small fraction
> of a second does the output of the "concept cell" capture and control
> attention and the neural machinery leading to Sherrington's "final common
> path"?****
> I conceive the "concept cell" as one of ~10^5 neurons forming a Hebbian
> assembly, which provides the key to a global attractor and the energy needed
> to  trigger a phase transition. In this view the meaning is expressed by the
> attractor involving ~10^9 neurons. The spikes of the sampled "concept cell"
> (in concert with ~10^5 - 1 other cells) are an essential sign, neural
> correlate, and agency mediating the construction of meaning from the memory
> (synaptic matrix) selected by a stimu****
>   ****
> *Dorian: *The efficiency of information processing  seems to be  the main
> reason of changes in the dynamics of firing. The T-maze learning shows a
> process of optimization. The firing rate is reduced when  a certain
> semantics is acquired in single cells. Here, in these recordings  it seem to
> be a similar process. If the objects are presented several times the
> increase in  “specialization”  occurs
> http://neuroelectrodynamics.blogspot.com/p/spike-directivity.html*)*.****
> I agree with Dr Freeman.  The temporal coding is ambiguous (see both
> counterexamples) the meaning  seems to be a result of electrical inference
> (not of temporal patterns)
> http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5345/version/2) - .****
> The *Horace Barlow's 1972 paper was an inspiration to  develop the new
>  computational model – NeuroElectroDynamics (NED). This computational
> model shows that information is integrated across different  scales  in the
> brain using electrical activity  (not temporal patterns) in order to
> generate the *“the *final common path” (* see a small network of four
> neurons http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5345/version/2) *. *Many
> scientists have previously envisioned and described different (non-Turing)
> forms of computations. *Computing by physical interaction in neurons ( in
> the brain)  generates a powerful (non-Turing)  model of computation. *****
> I’m  always  interested to analyze good recordings and really  delighted
> that  with these  new techniques the mystery of neural code can be solved
> http://neuroelectrodynamics.blogspot.com/p/cracking-neural-code.html “Cracking” the neural code was not the main goal goal. The result occurred
> in response to  other different questions- Why artificial intelligence
> cannot move beyond  capabilities of a two-and-a-half year old child? Why
> brain computations are so powerful? ****
> We found that several controversies in the field were generated by keeping
> alive the temporal coding paradigm. I value the contribution of all
> scientists that have worked in this field; they kept our interest focused on
> fundamental issues and our success in understanding how the brain computes
> (see NED) reflects  their long-standing  effort in this area. ****
> *"We have seen a little further by standing on the shoulders of Giants
> .... not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they,
> but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours”*****
> *Isaac Newton*****
> Therefore, I'm actively interacting   to clarify several issues regarding
> temporal coding.
> neuroelectrodynamics.blogspot.com/****
> http://neuronline.sfn.org/SFN/SFN/Home/Default.aspx (require membership)
> www.linkedin.com/groups/Computational-Neuroscience-1376707 (require
> membership)
>  Dorian Aur****
>  ****
>  ****
> ** **
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.neuroinf.org/pipermail/comp-neuro/attachments/20110819/e8d5422c/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Comp-neuro mailing list