Dual Computational Systems in the Development and Evolution of Mammalian Brains
Imam, N.; Kielo, M.; Trude, B. M.; Finlay, B. L.
Show abstract
Analyses of brain sizes across mammalian taxonomic groups reveal a consistent pattern of covariation between major brain components, including a robust inverse covariation between the limbic system and the neocortex. To find the functional basis of this inverse relationship, we mapped the multidimensional representations of task-optimized machine learning systems onto two-dimensional surfaces resembling the forebrain cortices. We found that visual, somatosensory and auditory systems develop ordered spatiotopic maps where units draw information from localized regions of the sensory input. Olfactory and relational memory systems, in contrast, develop fractured maps with distributed patterns of information convergence. Evolutionary optimization of multimodal systems for varying task objectives results in inverse covariation between spatiotopic and disordered system components that compete for representational space. These results suggest that the observed pattern of covariation between brain components reflect an essential computational duality in brain evolution.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- State and stimulus dependence reconcile motion computation and the Drosophila connectome 94%
- Non-preferred contrast responses in the Drosophila motion pathways reveal a receptive field structure that explains a common visual illusion 93%
- Deconstructing hunting behavior reveals a tightly coupled stimulus-response loop 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Population encoding of stimulus features along the visual hierarchy 96%
- Information processing dynamics in neural networks of macaque cerebral cortex reflect cognitive state and behavior. 96%
- Compensatory variability in network parameters enhances memory performance in the Drosophila mushroom body 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.