Evans functions for integral neural field equations with Heaviside firing rate function

In this paper we show how to construct the Evans function for traveling wave solutions of integral neural field equations when the firing rate function is a Heaviside. This allows a discussion of wave stability and bifurcation as a function of system parameters, including the speed and strength of synaptic coupling and the speed of axonal signals. The theory is illustrated with the construction and stability analysis of front solutions to a scalar neural field model and a limiting case is shown to recover recent results of L. Zhang [On stability of traveling wave solutions in synaptically coupled neuronal networks, Differential and Integral Equations, 16, (2003), pp.513-536.]. Traveling fronts and pulses are considered in more general models possessing either a linear or piecewise constant recovery variable. We establish the stability of coexisting traveling fronts beyond a front bifurcation and consider parameter regimes that support two stable traveling fronts of different speed. Such fronts may be connected and depending on their relative speed the resulting region of activity can widen or contract. The conditions for the contracting case to lead to a pulse solution are established. The stability of pulses is obtained for a variety of examples, in each case confirming a previously conjectured stability result. Finally we show how this theory may be used to describe the dynamic instability of a standing pulse that arises in a model with slow recovery. Numerical simulations show that such an instability can lead to the shedding of a pair of traveling pulses.

Error analyses reveal contrasting deficits in “theory of mind”: neuropsychological evidence from a 3-option false belief task

Perspective taking is a crucial ability that guides our social interactions. In this study, we show how the specific patterns of errors of brain-damaged patients in perspective taking tasks can help us further understand the factors contributing to perspective taking abilities. Previous work (e.g., Samson, Apperly, Chiavarino, & Humphreys, 2004; Samson, Apperly, Kathirgamanathan, & Humphreys, 2005) distinguished two components of perspective taking: the ability to inhibit our own perspective and the ability to infer someone else’s perspective. We assessed these components using a new nonverbal false belief task which provided different response options to detect three types of response strategies that participants might be using: a complete and spared belief reasoning strategy, a reality-based response selection strategy in which participants respond from their own perspective, and a simplified mentalising strategy in which participants avoid responding from their own perspective but rely on inaccurate cues to infer the other person’s belief. One patient, with a self-perspective inhibition deficit, almost always used the reality-based response strategy; in contrast, the other patient, with a deficit in taking other perspectives, tended to use the simplified mentalising strategy without necessarily transposing her own perspective. We discuss the extent to which the pattern of performance of both patients could relate to their executive function deficit and how it can inform us on the cognitive and neural components involved in belief reasoning.