| Literature DB >> 31659335 |
Blake A Richards1,2,3,4, Timothy P Lillicrap5,6, Denis Therien7, Konrad P Kording8,9,10, Philippe Beaudoin7, Yoshua Bengio11,8,12, Rafal Bogacz13, Amelia Christensen14, Claudia Clopath15, Rui Ponte Costa16,17, Archy de Berker7, Surya Ganguli18,19, Colleen J Gillon20,21, Danijar Hafner19,22,23, Adam Kepecs24, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte25,26, Peter Latham27, Grace W Lindsay26,28, Kenneth D Miller26,28,29, Richard Naud30,31, Christopher C Pack32, Panayiota Poirazi33, Pieter Roelfsema34, João Sacramento35, Andrew Saxe36, Benjamin Scellier11,12, Anna C Schapiro37, Walter Senn17, Greg Wayne5, Daniel Yamins38,39,40, Friedemann Zenke41,42, Joel Zylberberg8,43,44.
Abstract
Systems neuroscience seeks explanations for how the brain implements a wide variety of perceptual, cognitive and motor tasks. Conversely, artificial intelligence attempts to design computational systems based on the tasks they will have to solve. In artificial neural networks, the three components specified by design are the objective functions, the learning rules and the architectures. With the growing success of deep learning, which utilizes brain-inspired architectures, these three designed components have increasingly become central to how we model, engineer and optimize complex artificial learning systems. Here we argue that a greater focus on these components would also benefit systems neuroscience. We give examples of how this optimization-based framework can drive theoretical and experimental progress in neuroscience. We contend that this principled perspective on systems neuroscience will help to generate more rapid progress.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31659335 PMCID: PMC7115933 DOI: 10.1038/s41593-019-0520-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Neurosci ISSN: 1097-6256 Impact factor: 24.884