Abstract
Cognitive
science
was
founded
on
the
idea
that
mind/brain
can
be
understood
in
computational
terms.
While
modeling
is
ubiquitous,
cognitive
takes
stronger
stance
literally
performs
computations.
Moreover,
performing
computations
crucial
to
explaining
what
does,
qua
mind/brain.
Unfortunately,
most
scientists
fail
consider
analog
computation
as
a
legitimate
and
theoretically
useful
type
of
addition
digital
computation;
extent
acknowledged,
it
mostly
based
simplistic
incomplete
understanding.
Taking
consist
only
one
(i.e.,
digital)
while
ignoring
another,
interestingly
distinct
analog)
leads
an
impoverished
understanding
could
mean
for
minds/brains
compute.
A
full
appreciation
computation—particularly
relation
computation—allows
researchers
develop
frameworks
hypotheses
new
exciting
ways.
Thus,
somewhat
counterintuitively,
looking
once‐dominant
computing
paradigm
yesteryear
provide
novel
ways
thinking
about
mind
brain.
This
article
categorized
under:
Philosophy
>
Foundations
Science
Strategy Science,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown
Published: Dec. 3, 2024
Scholars
argue
that
artificial
intelligence
(AI)
can
generate
genuine
novelty
and
new
knowledge
and,
in
turn,
AI
computational
models
of
cognition
will
replace
human
decision
making
under
uncertainty.
We
disagree.
AI’s
data-based
prediction
is
different
from
theory-based
causal
logic
reasoning.
highlight
problems
with
the
decades-old
analogy
between
computers
minds
as
input–output
devices,
using
large
language
an
example.
Human
better
conceptualized
a
form
reasoning
rather
than
emphasis
on
information
processing
prediction.
uses
probability-based
approach
to
largely
backward
looking
imitative,
whereas
forward-looking
capable
generating
novelty.
introduce
idea
data–belief
asymmetries
difference
cognition,
example
heavier-than-air
flight
illustrate
our
arguments.
Theory-based
provides
cognitive
mechanism
for
humans
intervene
world
engage
directed
experimentation
data.
Throughout
article,
we
discuss
implications
argument
understanding
origins
novelty,
knowledge,
Genuinely
new
discovery
transcends
existing
knowledge.
Despite
this,
many
analyses
in
systems
neuroscience
neglect
to
test
speculative
hypotheses
against
benchmark
empirical
facts.
Some
of
these
inadvertently
use
circular
reasoning
present
knowledge
as
discovery.
Here,
I
discuss
that
this
problem
can
confound
key
results
and
estimate
it
has
affected
more
than
three
thousand
studies
network
over
the
last
decade.
suggest
future
reduce
by
limiting
evidence,
integrating
into
models,
rigorously
testing
proposed
discoveries
models.
conclude
with
a
summary
practical
challenges
recommendations.
Journal of Neuroscience,
Journal Year:
2023,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. JN - 22
Published: March 21, 2023
From
moment
to
moment,
the
visual
properties
of
objects
in
world
fluctuate
due
external
factors
like
ambient
lighting,
occlusion
and
eye
movements,
internal
(proximal)
noise.
Despite
this
variability
incoming
information,
our
perception
is
stable.
Serial
dependence,
behavioral
attraction
current
perceptual
responses
towards
previously
seen
stimuli,
may
reveal
a
mechanism
underlying
stability:
spatio-temporally
tuned
operator
that
smoothes
over
spurious
fluctuations.
The
study
examined
neural
underpinnings
serial
dependence
by
recording
electroencephalographic
(EEG)
brain
response
female
male
human
observers
prototypical
(faces,
cars
houses)
morphs
mixed
two
prototypes.
Behavior
was
biased
objects.
Representational
similarity
analysis
revealed
evoked
contained
information
about
previous
stimulus.
trace
representations
object
occurred
immediately
upon
appearance,
suggesting
arises
from
state
or
set
precedes
processing
new
input.
However,
not
representationally
similar
they
leave
on
subsequent
representations.
These
results
while
past
stimulus
history
influences
representations,
influence
does
imply
shared
code
between
trial
(memory)
(perception).
Significance
statement
pulled
instances
recent
past.
remain
be
fully
investigated.
present
EEG
faces,
houses,
ambiguous
between-category
morphs.
With
representational
analysis,
we
showed
(1)
object-specific
patterns
differentiate
three
categories;
(2)
contains
object,
mirroring
dependence;
(3)
pattern
different
response,
revealing
Abstract
The
search
for
the
engram
—the
neural
mechanism
of
memory—has
been
a
guiding
research
project
neuroscience
since
its
emergence
as
distinct
scientific
field.
Recent
developments
in
tools
and
techniques
available
investigating
mechanisms
memory
have
allowed
researchers
to
proclaimed
is
over.
While
there
ongoing
debate
about
justification
that
claim,
renewed
interest
clear.
This
attention
highlights
impoverished
status
concept.
As
accelerates,
simple
characterization
an
enduring
physical
change
stretched
thin.
Now
commitment
has
made
more
explicit,
it
must
also
be
precise.
If
20th
century
neurobiology
was
finding
engram,
21st
supplying
richer
account
what's
found.
paper
sketches
history
way
forward.
article
categorized
under:
Philosophy
>
Foundations
Cognitive
Science
PLoS Computational Biology,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
21(1), P. e1012751 - e1012751
Published: Jan. 27, 2025
The
human
visual
system
possesses
a
remarkable
ability
to
detect
and
process
faces
across
diverse
contexts,
including
the
phenomenon
of
face
pareidolia—–seeing
in
inanimate
objects.
Despite
extensive
research,
it
remains
unclear
why
employs
such
broadly
tuned
detection
capabilities.
We
hypothesized
that
pareidolia
results
from
system’s
optimization
for
recognizing
both
To
test
this
hypothesis,
we
used
task-optimized
deep
convolutional
neural
networks
(CNNs)
evaluated
their
alignment
with
behavioral
signatures
responses,
measured
via
magnetoencephalography
(MEG),
related
processing.
Specifically,
trained
CNNs
on
tasks
involving
combinations
identification,
detection,
object
categorization,
detection.
Using
representational
similarity
analysis,
found
included
categorization
training
represented
faces,
real
matched
objects
more
similarly
responses
than
those
did
not.
Although
these
showed
similar
overall
data,
closer
examination
internal
representations
revealed
specific
had
distinct
effects
how
were
layers.
Finally,
interpretability
methods
only
CNN
identification
relied
face-like
features—such
as
‘eyes’—to
classify
stimuli
mirroring
findings
perception.
Our
suggest
human-like
may
emerge
within
context
generalized
categorization.
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory),
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
unknown
Published: April 1, 2025
Neural
representation
refers
to
the
brain
activity
that
stands
in
for
one's
cognitive
experience,
and
neuroscience,
principal
method
studying
neural
representations
is
representational
similarity
analysis
(RSA).
The
classic
RSA
(cRSA)
approach
examines
overall
quality
of
across
numerous
items
by
assessing
correspondence
between
two
matrices
(RSMs):
one
based
on
a
theoretical
model
stimulus
other
measured
data.
However,
because
cRSA
cannot
at
level
individual
trials,
it
fundamentally
limited
its
ability
assess
subject-,
stimulus-,
trial-level
variances
all
influence
representation.
Here,
we
formally
introduce
(tRSA),
an
analytical
framework
estimates
strength
singular
experimental
trials
evaluates
hypotheses
using
multi-level
models.
First,
verified
tRSA
quantifying
trials.
Second,
compared
statistical
inferences
drawn
from
both
approaches
simulated
data
reflected
wide
range
scenarios.
Compared
cRSA,
was
more
theoretically
appropriate
significantly
sensitive
true
effects.
Third,
real
fMRI
datasets,
further
demonstrated
several
issues
with
which
robust.
Finally,
presented
some
novel
findings
could
only
be
assessed
not
cRSA.
In
summary,
proves
robust
versatile
neuroscience
beyond.