Linking Visual Development and Learning to Information Processing: Preattentive and Attentive Brain Dynamics

National Science Foundation (SBE-0354378); Office of Naval Research (N00014-95-1-0657)

Consciousness CLEARS the Mind

A full understanding of consciouness requires that we identify the brain processes from which conscious experiences emerge. What are these processes, and what is their utility in supporting successful adaptive behaviors? Adaptive Resonance Theory (ART) predicted a functional link between processes of Consciousness, Learning, Expectation, Attention, Resonance, and Synchrony (CLEARS), includes the prediction that "all conscious states are resonant states." This connection clarifies how brain dynamics enable a behaving individual to autonomously adapt in real time to a rapidly changing world. The present article reviews theoretical considerations that predicted these functional links, how they work, and some of the rapidly growing body of behavioral and brain data that have provided support for these predictions. The article also summarizes ART models that predict functional roles for identified cells in laminar thalamocortical circuits, including the six layered neocortical circuits and their interactions with specific primary and higher-order specific thalamic nuclei and nonspecific nuclei. These prediction include explanations of how slow perceptual learning can occur more frequently in superficial cortical layers. ART traces these properties to the existence of intracortical feedback loops, and to reset mechanisms whereby thalamocortical mismatches use circuits such as the one from specific thalamic nuclei to nonspecific thalamic nuclei and then to layer 4 of neocortical areas via layers 1-to-5-to-6-to-4.

From Synapse to Self: Spikes, Synchrony, and Attentive Learning by Laminar Thalamocortical Circuits

How do our brains transform the "blooming buzzing confusion" of daily experience into a coherent sense of self that can learn and selectively attend to important information? How do local signals at multiple processing stages, none of which has a global view of brain dynamics or behavioral outcomes, trigger learning at multiple synaptic sites when appropriate, and prevent learning when inappropriate, to achieve useful behavioral goals in a continually changing world? How does the brain allow synaptic plasticity at a remarkably rapid rate, as anyone who has gone to an exciting movie is readily aware, yet also protect useful memories from catastrophic forgetting? A neural model provides a unified answer by explaining and quantitatively simulating data about single cell biophysics and neurophysiology, laminar neuroanatomy, aggregate cell recordings (current-source densities, local field potentials), large-scale oscillations (beta, gamma), and spike-timing dependent plasticity, and functionally linking them all to cognitive information processing requirements.

Neural Dynamics of Autistic Behaviors: Cognitive, Emotional, and Timing Substrates

What brain mechanisms underlie autism and how do they give rise to autistic behavioral symptoms? This article describes a neural model, called the iSTART model, which proposes how cognitive, emotional, timing, and motor processes may interact together to create and perpetuate autistic symptoms. These model processes were originally developed to explain data concerning how the brain controls normal behaviors. The iSTART model shows how autistic behavioral symptoms may arise from prescribed breakdowns in these brain processes.

Temporal Dynamics of Decision-Making during Motion Perception in the Visual Cortex

How does the brain make decisions? Speed and accuracy of perceptual decisions covary with certainty in the input, and correlate with the rate of evidence accumulation in parietal and frontal cortical "decision neurons." A biophysically realistic model of interactions within and between Retina/LGN and cortical areas V1, MT, MST, and LIP, gated by basal ganglia, simulates dynamic properties of decision-making in response to ambiguous visual motion stimuli used by Newsome, Shadlen, and colleagues in their neurophysiological experiments. The model clarifies how brain circuits that solve the aperture problem interact with a recurrent competitive network with self-normalizing choice properties to carry out probablistic decisions in real time. Some scientists claim that perception and decision-making can be described using Bayesian inference or related general statistical ideas, that estimate the optimal interpretation of the stimulus given priors and likelihoods. However, such concepts do not propose the neocortical mechanisms that enable perception, and make decisions. The present model explains behavioral and neurophysiological decision-making data without an appeal to Bayesian concepts and, unlike other existing models of these data, generates perceptual representations and choice dynamics in response to the experimental visual stimuli. Quantitative model simulations include the time course of LIP neuronal dynamics, as well as behavioral accuracy and reaction time properties, during both correct and error trials at different levels of input ambiguity in both fixed duration and reaction time tasks. Model MT/MST interactions compute the global direction of random dot motion stimuli, while model LIP computes the stochastic perceptual decision that leads to a saccadic eye movement.

Neural Dynamics of Saccadic and Smooth Pursuit Eye Movement Coordination during Visual Tracking of Unpredictably Moving Targets

How does the brain use eye movements to track objects that move in unpredictable directions and speeds? Saccadic eye movements rapidly foveate peripheral visual or auditory targets and smooth pursuit eye movements keep the fovea pointed toward an attended moving target. Analyses of tracking data in monkeys and humans reveal systematic deviations from predictions of the simplest model of saccade-pursuit interactions, which would use no interactions other than common target selection and recruitment of shared motoneurons. Instead, saccadic and smooth pursuit movements cooperate to cancel errors of gaze position and velocity, and thus to maximize target visibility through time. How are these two systems coordinated to promote visual localization and identification of moving targets? How are saccades calibrated to correctly foveate a target despite its continued motion during the saccade? A neural model proposes answers to such questions. The modeled interactions encompass motion processing areas MT, MST, FPA, DLPN and NRTP; saccade planning and execution areas FEF and SC; the saccadic generator in the brain stem; and the cerebellum. Simulations illustrate the model’s ability to functionally explain and quantitatively simulate anatomical, neurophysiological and behavioral data about SAC-SPEM tracking.

Neural Dynamics Underlying Impaired Autonomic and Conditioned Responses Following Amygdala and Orbitofrontal Lesions

A neural model is presented that explains how outcome-specific learning modulates affect, decision-making and Pavlovian conditioned approach responses. The model addresses how brain regions responsible for affective learning and habit learning interact, and answers a central question: What are the relative contributions of the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex to emotion and behavior? In the model, the amygdala calculates outcome value while the orbitofrontal cortex influences attention and conditioned responding by assigning value information to stimuli. Model simulations replicate autonomic, electrophysiological, and behavioral data associated with three tasks commonly used to assay these phenomena: Food consumption, Pavlovian conditioning, and visual discrimination. Interactions of the basal ganglia and amygdala with sensory and orbitofrontal cortices enable the model to replicate the complex pattern of spared and impaired behavioral and emotional capacities seen following lesions of the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex.

Laminar Cortical Dynamics of Visual Form and Motion Interactions During Coherent Object Motion Perception

How do visual form and motion processes cooperate to compute object motion when each process separately is insufficient? Consider, for example, a deer moving behind a bush. Here the partially occluded fragments of motion signals available to an observer must be coherently grouped into the motion of a single object. A 3D FORMOTION model comprises five important functional interactions involving the brain’s form and motion systems that address such situations. Because the model’s stages are analogous to areas of the primate visual system, we refer to the stages by corresponding anatomical names. In one of these functional interactions, 3D boundary representations, in which figures are separated from their backgrounds, are formed in cortical area V2. These depth-selective V2 boundaries select motion signals at the appropriate depths in MT via V2-to-MT signals. In another, motion signals in MT disambiguate locally incomplete or ambiguous boundary signals in V2 via MT-to-V1-to-V2 feedback. The third functional property concerns resolution of the aperture problem along straight moving contours by propagating the influence of unambiguous motion signals generated at contour terminators or corners. Here, sparse “feature tracking signals” from, e.g., line ends, are amplified to overwhelm numerically superior ambiguous motion signals along line segment interiors. In the fourth, a spatially anisotropic motion grouping process takes place across perceptual space via MT-MST feedback to integrate veridical feature-tracking and ambiguous motion signals to determine a global object motion percept. The fifth property uses the MT-MST feedback loop to convey an attentional priming signal from higher brain areas back to V1 and V2. The model's use of mechanisms such as divisive normalization, endstopping, cross-orientation inhibition, and longrange cooperation is described. Simulated data include: the degree of motion coherence of rotating shapes observed through apertures, the coherent vs. element motion percepts separated in depth during the chopsticks illusion, and the rigid vs. non-rigid appearance of rotating ellipses.