Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Data mining the functional architecture of the brain's circuitry

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read New brain-wide recordings finally make the functional architecture of the brain discoverable.

desk verdict A coherent perspective that sells a brain-wide functional-architecture agenda, but the central promise is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the paper's own identifiability concession is never squared with that promise. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09684 v1 pith:FGMWXFOH submitted 2025-01-16 q-bio.NC stat.AP

Adam S. Charles This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCstat.AP
keywords functionalarchitecturesystemsneuroscienceneuraldatamininglatentvariablemodelsmulti-modalfusionbrain-widerecordingsinterpretabilitymodulardynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Systems neuroscience has been local by necessity: small populations, single tasks, single brain areas, single imaging modalities. The paper argues that new recording and behavioral-monitoring technologies now provide the data to move to global neuroscience, in which the brain is treated as an interconnected set of distributed subsystems. Its central thesis is that the field is finally approaching the data needed to find the functional architecture of the brain—the 'software' running on the anatomical 'hardware'—and that doing so requires interpretable mathematical models that synthesize data across areas, tasks, and modalities. The payoff would be a roadmap of the general principles behind the brain's flexibility, robustness, and efficiency, and baselines for understanding neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the latent-variable modeling framework for multi-dataset neural data. In this view, observable activity $x(t)$ is generated from low-dimensional latents $z(t)$ through a (possibly nonlinear) readout $x(t)=\Phi(z(t))$, and the goal is to decompose the latent space into modular operators and into shared versus private components across views. One concrete instance, decomposed linear dynamical systems (dLDS), represents dynamics as paths on a manifold whose tangent spaces are spanned by a sparse set of linear operators $\{G_k\}$, each operator corresponding to a distinct interaction module. The same shared/private separation underlies multi-modal fusion, where the latent state splits as $z \to \{z_s, z_1, z_2\}$. The paper uses this framework to state both the promise and the challenge: modularity must be built into the model, and without it, nonlinear latent dynamics are unidentifiable up to invertible transformations.

What would settle it

Collect a large-scale dataset that combines calcium or voltage imaging across several brain areas with detailed behavior in the same animals across multiple distinct tasks, then fit a shared/private latent-dynamics model; if the inferred modules do not stabilize across task sets or cannot be aligned across animals, the central premise that the functional architecture is discoverable from current observational data fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the brain's functional architecture can be discovered from data that now exist. While anatomically defined regions provide a hardware map, functional architecture refers to where and how information spreads and transforms across widely distributed circuits; the paper cites evidence that activity is 'everywhere' and that no strict anatomical boundary predicts function. To find that architecture, the author argues, models must explicitly learn modular dynamics rather than treating all recorded units as one shared state space, and must separate shared from private information when fusing data from different tasks, animals, and modalities. The paper also flags the central mathematical obstacle, in Section 4: when latent dynamics are nonlinear, models are unidentifiable up to an arbitrary invertible transformation, so interpretable discovery requires additional structure or constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The program depends on the assumption that functional modules leave stable, separable signatures across the tasks, animals, and recording modalities available today, even though the paper itself concedes that nonlinear latent dynamics can be transformed arbitrarily without changing the data it produces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Brain-wide recordings across multiple tasks will reveal functional modules that are invisible in single-task studies, because distinct systems are recruited together in one task and separately in another.
  • Models that explicitly separate shared and private information across modalities will prevent erroneous scientific conclusions about shared brain function caused by information leakage.
  • Data geometry—curvature and tangent-space structure of neural manifolds—will become a primary language for linking dynamics, behavior, and brain-wide recordings.
  • Interpretable models, rather than black-box ANN predictors, are required because scientific discovery needs extrapolation beyond the training domain, not just accurate interpolation.
  • If the program succeeds, disorders such as neurodegeneration and psychiatric disease can be understood as changes in the functional architecture, not just as localized region-specific activity changes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's own unidentifiability caveat suggests a testable criterion: if a functional architecture is real, the modules recovered under different inductive biases (sparsity, independence, geometry) should converge; if they diverge, the data alone do not pin down the architecture.
  • A next step the paper leaves implicit is causal validation: inferred modules from observational recordings could be tested with targeted perturbations (e.g., optogenetics or lesions) to see whether they are functionally necessary.
  • If the multi-task RNN results generalize, training recurrent networks on the same task battery as animals should produce internal modules whose structure parallels the brain's, providing a fast testbed for model interpretability before invasive experiments.
  • The 'everything is everywhere' evidence implies that a functional atlas based on latent dynamics might generalize across individuals better than an anatomical atlas, which would be a direct test when comparing healthy and diseased populations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a perspective/position paper arguing that advances in large-scale neural recording, behavioral monitoring, and multi-modal imaging have created an opportunity to move from 'local' systems neuroscience to a 'global' account of the brain's functional architecture. The author proposes that by synthesizing data across brain areas, tasks, and modalities, and by using interpretable mathematical models with explicit modular or latent-state structure, the field can discover the distributed subsystems of brain computation and their interactions. The paper surveys relevant modeling approaches (e.g., dLDS, manifold methods, shared/private latent-variable models, multi-view fusion) and lists challenges: data alignment, task diversity, interpretability versus expressivity, and the non-identifiability of nonlinear latent dynamics. It concludes with a call for interpretable AI, data geometry, sparsity, and independent representations as guiding themes.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper identifies a timely and practically important research direction: moving from anatomy-centric descriptions to data-driven maps of functional circuits. The manuscript has the merit of naming concrete technical hurdles—cross-session and cross-animal alignment, shared-versus-private latent structure, and the expressivity/interpretability trade-off—and of pointing to a set of recent methods as initial steps. It is also candid in explicitly acknowledging the non-identifiability of nonlinear latent dynamics, which many similar programmatic papers omit. However, the paper is an opinion piece without new data, derivations, or simulations, and its central assertion that current or imminent datasets will allow discovery of the functional architecture is not backed by a formal argument. The significance therefore rests on whether the identified obstacles can be resolved, especially the identifiability problem, which the manuscript does not address beyond listing it as a challenge.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4] The paper's central claim that new multi-area, multi-task, multi-modal data will allow discovery of the brain's functional architecture is not reconciled with the non-identifiability result stated in Section 4. There, the author correctly notes that for nonlinear latent dynamics z_t = g(z_{t-1}) and nonlinear emissions x_t = Φ(z_t), any invertible h yields an equally valid solution (Φ∘h, h^{-1}∘g∘h, h^{-1}(z_t)). Since the proposed 'functional architecture' is defined on latent states, the number of modules, their boundaries, and their interaction graph are all invariant under this reparameterization. The paper acknowledges that 'theoretical advances are needed' but does not explain what those advances would be; the concluding appeal to sparsity, independence, and geometry is not connected to any identifiability theorem. Without either restricting the model class (e.g., identifiable nonlinear ICA with auxiliary variables), invoking interventions or perturbations, or explicitly reframing the goal as discovering an equivalence class of architectures, the abstract's claim that the data are 'needed to find' the architecture overstates what observational recordings alone can deliver.
  2. [Section 3] The argument that synthesizing data across tasks will differentiate between co-active systems is presented only through an intuitive example (reaction task versus decision task). The manuscript does not state what conditions on the task set, behavioral coverage, or neural-population overlap would make such differentiation possible, nor does it show that any existing or planned dataset satisfies those conditions. As written, the claim that multi-task data will reveal shared versus private systems is an assertion, not a demonstrated research conclusion. The authors should either temper the claim or provide concrete criteria—for example, the number and type of tasks needed to decorrelate system engagement—so that the opportunity statement is falsifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typographical errors: 'moleclular' should be 'molecular', and 'inmodality' should be 'in modality'.
  2. [Section 4] The notation for the transformed latent variable is confusing: 'gz(t) = h^{-1}(z(t))' should be written as a new latent variable, e.g., \tilde z(t) = h^{-1}(z(t)), with corresponding definitions \tilde Φ = Φ∘h and \tilde g = h^{-1}∘g∘h. As printed, 'gz(t)' looks like another dynamical map rather than the transformed state.
  3. [Section 5] In the sentence defining multi-modal readouts, 'x2 = f2(x2)' should read 'x2 = f2(z)'.
  4. [Section 5] 'Sythesizing' should be 'Synthesizing'.
  5. [General] The paper uses 'functional architecture' as a central term but never defines it operationally. Even a working definition—e.g., a partition of latent variables into modules with specified interactions—would help the reader understand what kind of evidence would confirm or refute a proposed architecture.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a perspective with no fitted prediction or derived quantity; self-citations are illustrative, and the identifiability concession in Section 4 is a stated limitation rather than a circular step.

full rationale

This is a perspective/roadmap paper, not a derivation. Its central claim is an opportunity statement: improvements in recording technology and behavioral monitoring now make it plausible to discover the brain's functional architecture from large-scale, multi-area, multi-task, multi-modal data. No quantity is fitted and then renamed as a prediction, no theorem is proved from assumptions that include the conclusion, and no equation is defined in terms of its own target. The author cites several prior works in which they were involved (dLDS, GRAFT, SIBBLINGS, CREIMBO, SVAE, butterfly architectures, and others), but these citations serve as examples of existing modeling approaches that motivate the research agenda; the agenda does not stand or fall on the correctness of any single cited method, and none of the cited works is invoked as an external uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. Section 4 does explicitly concede that nonlinear latent dynamics with nonlinear emissions are identifiable only up to an invertible transformation h, writing that one can define Phi-tilde, g-tilde, and z-tilde that describe the data equally well. This is an honest statement of a key limitation of the proposed program, and it undercuts the strength of the central optimism, but it is not circular: it does not assume what it sets out to show, and it does not dress an input as an output. Therefore, under the rule that self-citation is not circularity unless load-bearing, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a research agenda, not a derivation. It assumes modular functional architecture exists, that current data are sufficient, and that shared/private latent geometry will make it identifiable. These are domain assumptions, not circular derivations.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Current neural recording and behavioral monitoring data are approaching sufficiency for discovering the brain's functional architecture.
    Stated in the abstract and Section 1 as an opportunity, but never quantified or demonstrated; the paper later acknowledges identifiability limits in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Distinct functional modules exist and can be recovered from task variation as shared and private latent factors.
    Sections 3 and 5 assume modularity is discoverable and that shared/private decompositions are meaningful and separable.
  • domain assumption Geometric methods such as tangent-space decompositions (dLDS) provide a valid description of modular neural dynamics.
    Section 2 presents dLDS as a powerful tool and relies on the cited result (Mudrik et al. 2024) without independent verification here.
  • domain assumption The unidentifiability of nonlinear latent models can be overcome by geometry, sparsity, or independence constraints.
    Section 4 explicitly says theoretical advances are needed, so the paper's agenda depends on this being possible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data mining the functional architecture of the brain's circuitry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGMWXFOH

@misc{pith2026250109684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data mining the functional architecture of the brain's circuitry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGMWXFOH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09684}
}
read the original abstract

The brain is a highly complex organ consisting of a myriad of subsystems that flexibly interact and adapt over time and context to enable perception, cognition, and behavior. Understanding the multi-scale nature of the brain, i.e., how circuit- and moleclular-level interactions build up the fundamental components of brain function, holds incredible potential for developing interventions for neurodegenerative and psychiatric diseases, as well as open new understanding into our very nature. Historically technological limitations have forced systems neuroscience to be local in anatomy (localized, small neural populations in single brain areas), in behavior (studying single tasks), in time (focusing on specific stages of learning or development), and in modality (focusing on imaging single biological quantities). New developments in neural recording technology and behavioral monitoring now provide the data needed to break free of local neuroscience to global neuroscience: i.e., understanding how the brain's many subsystem interact, adapt, and change across the multitude of behaviors animals and humans must perform to thrive. Specifically, while we have much knowledge of the anatomical architecture of the brain (i.e., the hardware), we finally are approaching the data needed to find the functional architecture and discover the fundamental properties of the software that runs on the hardware. We must take this opportunity to bridge between the vast amounts of data to discover this functional architecture which will face numerous challenges from low-level data alignment up to high level questions of interpretable mathematical models of behavior that can synthesize the myriad of datasets together.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Challenges in discovering the brain’s functional architecture. Left: many brain-wide recordings have [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example neural modeling approaches. A: defining the local geometry of the neural data can provide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Relating represen- tational geometry to cortical geometry in the visual cortex

    Francisco Acosta, Colin Conwell, Sophia Sanborn, David Klindt, and Nina Miolane. Relating represen- tational geometry to cortical geometry in the visual cortex. NeurIPS Workshop on Unifying Representa- tions, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Deep canonical correlation analysis

    Galen Andrew, Raman Arora, Jeff Bilmes, and Karen Livescu. Deep canonical correlation analysis. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1247–1255. PMLR, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Lan- guage processing in the occipital cortex of congenitally blind adults

    Marina Bedny, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, David Dodell- Feder, Evelina Fedorenko, and Rebecca Saxe. Lan- guage processing in the occipital cortex of congenitally blind adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(11):4429–4434, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Review of data processing of func- tional optical microscopy for neuroscience

    Hadas Benisty, Alexander Song, Gal Mishne, and Adam S Charles. Review of data processing of func- tional optical microscopy for neuroscience. Neuropho- tonics, 9(4):041402–041402, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Sufficient and Necessary Explanations (and What Lies in Between)

    Beepul Bharti, Paul Yi, and Jeremias Sulam. Sufficient and necessary explanations (and what lies in between). arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20427 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Coordinated cross- brain activity during accumulation of sensory evidence and decision commitment

    Adrian G Bondy, Julie A Charlton, Thomas Zhihao Luo, Charles D Kopec, Wynne M Stagnaro, Sarah Jo C Venditto, Laura Lynch, Sanjeev Janarthanan, Stefan N Oline, Timothy D Harris, et al. Coordinated cross- brain activity during accumulation of sensory evidence and decision commitment. bioRxiv, pages 2024–08, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Understanding disentangling in β-vae

    Christopher P Burgess, Irina Higgins, Arka Pal, Loic Matthey, Nick Watters, Guillaume Desjardins, and Alexander Lerchner. Understanding disentangling in β-vae. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03599 , 2018

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Graft: Graph filtered temporal dictionary learning for functional neural imaging

    Adam S Charles, Nathan Cermak, Rifqi O Affan, Benjamin B Scott, Jackie Schiller, and Gal Mishne. Graft: Graph filtered temporal dictionary learning for functional neural imaging. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31:3509–3524, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Toward community-driven big open brain sci- ence: open big data and tools for structure, function, and genetics

    Adam S Charles, Benjamin Falk, Nicholas Turner, et al. Toward community-driven big open brain sci- ence: open big data and tools for structure, function, and genetics. Annual review of neuroscience , 43:441– 464, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Brain-wide neural activity underlying memory-guided movement

    Susu Chen, Yi Liu, Ziyue Aiden Wang, Jennifer Colonell, Liu D Liu, Han Hou, Nai-Wen Tien, Tim Wang, Timothy Harris, Shaul Druckmann, et al. Brain-wide neural activity underlying memory-guided movement. Cell, 187(3):676–691, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Neural population dy- namics during reaching

    Mark M Churchland, John P Cunningham, Matthew T Kaufman, Justin D Foster, Paul Nuyujukian, Stephen I Ryu, and Krishna V Shenoy. Neural population dy- namics during reaching. Nature, 487(7405):51–56, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    High-speed, cortex-wide volumetric recording of neuroactivity at cellular resolution using light beads microscopy

    Jeffery Demas, Jason Manley, Frank Tejera, Hyewon Kim, Francisca Martinez Traub, Brandon Chen, and Alipasha Vaziri. High-speed, cortex-wide volumetric recording of neuroactivity at cellular resolution using light beads microscopy. bioRxiv, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Flexible multitask computation in recurrent networks utilizes shared dynamical motifs

    Laura N Driscoll, Krishna Shenoy, and David Sussillo. Flexible multitask computation in recurrent networks utilizes shared dynamical motifs. Nature Neuroscience, 27(7):1349–1363, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Explainable ai (xai): Core ideas, techniques, and solutions

    Rudresh Dwivedi, Devam Dave, Het Naik, Smiti Sing- hal, Rana Omer, Pankesh Patel, Bin Qian, Zhenyu Wen, Tejal Shah, Graham Morgan, et al. Explainable ai (xai): Core ideas, techniques, and solutions. ACM Computing Surveys , 55(9):1–33, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Chronic brain functional ultrasound imaging in freely moving rodents performing cognitive tasks

    Ahmed El Hady, Daniel Takahashi, Ruolan Sun, Oluwateniola Akinwale, Tyler Boyd-Meredith, Yisi Zhang, Adam S Charles, and Carlos D Brody. Chronic brain functional ultrasound imaging in freely moving rodents performing cognitive tasks. Journal of neuro- science methods, 403:110033, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Sparse- coding variational autoencoders

    Victor Geadah, Gabriel Barello, Daniel Greenidge, Adam S Charles, and Jonathan W Pillow. Sparse- coding variational autoencoders. Neural Computation, pages 1–31, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Multi-modal gaussian process variational autoencoders for neural and behavioral data

    Rabia Gondur, Usama Bin Sikandar, Evan Schaf- fer, Mikio Christian Aoi, and Stephen L Keeley. Multi-modal gaussian process variational autoencoders for neural and behavioral data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03111, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Canonical correlation analysis: An overview with application to learning methods

    David R Hardoon, Sandor Szedmak, and John Shawe- Taylor. Canonical correlation analysis: An overview with application to learning methods. Neural compu- tation, 16(12):2639–2664, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    Fully integrated silicon probes for high-density recording of neural activity

    James J Jun, Nicholas A Steinmetz, Joshua H Siegle, et al. Fully integrated silicon probes for high-density recording of neural activity. Nature, 551(7679):232, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Dissociated functional signifi- cance of decision-related activity in the primate dorsal stream

    Leor N Katz, Jacob L Yates, Jonathan W Pillow, and Alexander C Huk. Dissociated functional signifi- cance of decision-related activity in the primate dorsal stream. Nature, 535(7611):285–288, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Sequential and ef- ficient neural-population coding of complex task infor- mation

    Sue Ann Koay, Adam S Charles, Stephan Y Thiberge, Carlos Brody, and David W Tank. Sequential and ef- ficient neural-population coding of complex task infor- mation. bioRxiv, page 801654, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Unsupervised discovery of the shared and private geometry in multi-view data

    Sai Koukuntla, Joshua B Julian, Jesse C Kaminsky, Manuel Schottdorf, David W Tank, Carlos D Brody, and Adam S Charles. Unsupervised discovery of the shared and private geometry in multi-view data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12091, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Learning the ge- ometry of common latent variables using alternating- diffusion

    Roy R Lederman and Ronen Talmon. Learning the ge- ometry of common latent variables using alternating- diffusion. Applied and Computational Harmonic Anal- ysis, 44(3):509–536, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Bayesian learning and inference in recurrent switching linear dy- namical systems

    Scott Linderman, Matthew Johnson, Andrew Miller, Ryan Adams, David Blei, and Liam Paninski. Bayesian learning and inference in recurrent switching linear dy- namical systems. In Artificial intelligence and statis- tics, pages 914–922. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Decomposed lin- ear dynamical systems (dlds) for learning the latent components of neural dynamics

    Noga Mudrik, Yenho Chen, Eva Yezerets, Christo- pher J Rozell, and Adam S Charles. Decomposed lin- ear dynamical systems (dlds) for learning the latent components of neural dynamics. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(59):1–44, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Creimbo: Cross ensemble interactions in multi-view brain observations

    Noga Mudrik, Ryan Ly, Oliver Ruebel, and Adam S Charles. Creimbo: Cross ensemble interactions in multi-view brain observations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17395, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sibblings: Similarity-driven building-block inference using graphs across states

    Noga Mudrik, Gal Mishne, and Adam S Charles. Sibblings: Similarity-driven building-block inference using graphs across states. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Using deeplabcut for 3d markerless pose esti- mation across species and behaviors

    Tanmay Nath, Alexander Mathis, An Chi Chen, Amir Patel, Matthias Bethge, and Mackenzie Weygandt Mathis. Using deeplabcut for 3d markerless pose esti- mation across species and behaviors. Nature protocols, 14(7):2152–2176, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Sleap: Multi- animal pose tracking

    Talmo D Pereira, Nathaniel Tabris, Junyu Li, Shruthi Ravindranath, Eleni S Papadoyannis, Z Yan Wang, David M Turner, Grace McKenzie-Smith, Sarah D Kocher, Annegret L Falkner, et al. Sleap: Multi- animal pose tracking. BioRxiv, pages 2020–08, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Rethinking brain-wide interactions through multi-region ‘network of networks’ models

    Matthew G Perich and Kanaka Rajan. Rethinking brain-wide interactions through multi-region ‘network of networks’ models. Current opinion in neurobiology , 65:146–151, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Spatio-temporal correlations and visual signalling in a complete neuronal population

    Jonathan W Pillow, Jonathon Shlens, Liam Paninski, Alexander Sher, Alan M Litke, EJ Chichilnisky, and Eero P Simoncelli. Spatio-temporal correlations and visual signalling in a complete neuronal population. Nature, 454(7207):995–999, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    Neural signal propagation atlas of caenorhabditis elegans

    Francesco Randi, Anuj K Sharma, Sophie Dvali, and Andrew M Leifer. Neural signal propagation atlas of caenorhabditis elegans. Nature, 623(7986):406–414, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    A general framework for parallel distributed processing

    David E Rumelhart, Geoffrey E Hinton, James L McClelland, et al. A general framework for parallel distributed processing. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition , 1(45- 76):26, 1986

    1986

  26. [34]

    Mod- eling behaviorally relevant neural dynamics enabled by preferential subspace identification

    Omid G Sani, Hamidreza Abbaspourazad, Yan T Wong, Bijan Pesaran, and Maryam M Shanechi. Mod- eling behaviorally relevant neural dynamics enabled by preferential subspace identification. Nature Neu- roscience, 24(1):140–149, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    A. Song, A. S. Charles, S. A. Koay, J. L. Gauthier, S. Y. Thiberge, J. W. Pillow, and D. W. Tank. Volumet- ric two-photon imaging of neurons using stereoscopy (vTwINS). Nature methods, 14(4):420, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Distributed cod- ing of choice, action and engagement across the mouse brain

    Nicholas A Steinmetz, Peter Zatka-Haas, Matteo Carandini, and Kenneth D Harris. Distributed cod- ing of choice, action and engagement across the mouse brain. Nature, 576(7786):266–273, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    How advances in neural recording affect data analysis

    Ian H Stevenson and Konrad P Kording. How advances in neural recording affect data analysis. Nature neuro- science, 14(2):139–142, 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    Building compositional tasks with shared neural sub- spaces

    Sina Tafazoli, Flora M Bouchacourt, Adel Ardalan, Nikola T Markov, Motoaki Uchimura, Marcelo G Mat- tar, Nathaniel D Daw, and Timothy J Buschman. Building compositional tasks with shared neural sub- spaces. bioRxiv, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Fast hierarchical games for image explanations

    Jacopo Teneggi, Alexandre Luster, and Jeremias Su- lam. Fast hierarchical games for image explanations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(4):4494–4503, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Disentangling representations in rnns through multi- task learning

    Pantelis Vafidis, Aman Bhargava, and Antonio Rangel. Disentangling representations in rnns through multi- task learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11249 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Real-time volumetric mi- croscopy of in vivo dynamics and large-scale samples with scape 2.0

    Venkatakaushik Voleti, Kripa B Patel, Wenze Li, Cit- lali Perez Campos, Srinidhi Bharadwaj, Hang Yu, Caitlin Ford, Malte J Casper, Richard Wenwei Yan, Wenxuan Liang, et al. Real-time volumetric mi- croscopy of in vivo dynamics and large-scale samples with scape 2.0. Nature met...

    2019

  34. [42]

    Deep graph pose: a semi-supervised deep graphical model for improved animal pose track- ing

    Anqi Wu, Estefany Kelly Buchanan, Matthew White- way, Michael Schartner, Guido Meijer, Jean-Paul Noel, Erica Rodriguez, Claire Everett, Amy Norovich, Evan Schaffer, et al. Deep graph pose: a semi-supervised deep graphical model for improved animal pose track- ing. Advances in ...

    2020

  35. [43]

    De- composed linear dynamical systems (dlds) models re- veal context-dependent dynamic connectivity in c

    Eva Yezerets, Noga Mudrik, and Adam Charles. De- composed linear dynamical systems (dlds) models re- veal context-dependent dynamic connectivity in c. ele- gans. bioRxiv, pages 2024–05, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Extracting dynamical structure embedded in neural ac- tivity

    Byron M Yu, Afsheen Afshar, Gopal Santhanam, Stephen Ryu, Krishna V Shenoy, and Maneesh Sahani. Extracting dynamical structure embedded in neural ac- tivity. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 18, 2005

    2005

  37. [45]

    Large-scale two-photon calcium imaging in freely moving mice

    Weijian Zong, Horst A Obenhaus, Emilie R Skytøen, Hanna Eneqvist, Nienke L de Jong, Ruben Vale, Marina R Jorge, May-Britt Moser, and Edvard I Moser. Large-scale two-photon calcium imaging in freely moving mice. Cell, 185(7):1240–1256, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.