The linked ScienceDaily article is one of however many clones of a press release written by a freelance science journalist, about a paper that as far as I can tell is still embargoed, but will be out on PNAS within a week. It has the typical breathless style and vagueness of journalistic reporting on science.
As best I can make out, the PR is claiming that someone can “make a near perfect prediction” of something that it simultaneously claims results from synapses that “randomly bump into each other”. Hm, okay.
I’m not “somebody like davidad” but I would wait until the actual article is out before getting either excited or disappointed; by default I’d assume no more than the most tenuous of connections between press releases and actual scientific content.
(But I’m tempted to ask you, “What do you know—and why?”)
It is well-established that synapse formation involves highly selective chemospecific mechanisms, but how neuron arbors are positioned before synapse formation remains unclear. Using 3D reconstructions of 298 neocortical cells of different types (including nest basket, small basket, large basket, bitufted, pyramidal, and Martinotti cells), we constructed a structural model of a cortical microcircuit, in which cells of different types were independently and randomly placed. We compared the positions of physical appositions resulting from the incidental overlap of axonal and dendritic arbors in the model (statistical structural connectivity) with the positions of putative functional synapses (functional synaptic connectivity) in 90 synaptic connections reconstructed from cortical slice preparations. Overall, we found that statistical connectivity predicted an average of 74 ± 2.7% (mean ± SEM) synapse location distributions for nine types of cortical connections. This finding suggests that chemospecific attractive and repulsive mechanisms generally do not result in pairwise-specific connectivity. In some cases, however, the predicted distributions do not match precisely, indicating that chemospecific steering and aligning of the arbors may occur for some types of connections. This finding suggests that random alignment of axonal and dendritic arbors provides a sufficient foundation for specific functional connectivity to emerge in local neural microcircuits.
I’d like to know where “accuracy ranging from 75 percent to 95 percent” in the press release came from.
Looking at the paper, I’m guessing it’s the histogram intersection (HI) measurement, which actually ranged from 50% to 95% with an average of 75%, so that’s one glaring error I could find in the first few minutes of looking at a paper in a field that I know next to nothing about. (A further guess is that the journalist thought 75% accuracy didn’t sound all that impressive, and so went on a hunt for a grander number, hitting on the 95%.)
Maybe I’m all wet, but what I’m taking from the paper is that it’s actually a null result? As in, some other researchers had theorized that the fine structure of synaptic connections was somehow “guided” by chemical signals, but the simulation in fact suggests that “randomly bumping into each other” is closer to the truth. This does seem to (maybe decisively) settle a debate which the authors say has gone on for decades; I’m wondering if the term “breakthrough” is warranted though.
As best I can make out, the PR is claiming that someone can “make a near perfect prediction” of something that it simultaneously claims results from synapses that “randomly bump into each other”. Hm, okay.
It’s like describing as “a near perfect prediction”, the prediction that a tossed coin will come down heads with 50% probability. The 50% figure may be really precise, but that still tells you nothing about the next coin toss. The press release seems to confuse knowledge about a distribution with knowledge about individuals drawn from it.
As I understand it, what the paper, and Henry Markram as quoted in the press release, are actually saying is that their experiments show a distribution of connections that one would get by things randomly bumping into each other. This implies the predictions that there is no other organising mechanism in play yet to be discovered, and that to build an artificial network capable of the same functionality, one can build the connections in the same random manner. Or as they put it in the title, “Statistical connectivity provides a sufficient foundation for specific functional connectivity”.
Note that the title is a prediction from what they have observed, not the observation itself. Functional comparisions of real neural tissue and artificial networks constructed on these lines have not yet been done.
The linked ScienceDaily article is one of however many clones of a press release written by a freelance science journalist, about a paper that as far as I can tell is still embargoed, but will be out on PNAS within a week. It has the typical breathless style and vagueness of journalistic reporting on science.
As best I can make out, the PR is claiming that someone can “make a near perfect prediction” of something that it simultaneously claims results from synapses that “randomly bump into each other”. Hm, okay.
I’m not “somebody like davidad” but I would wait until the actual article is out before getting either excited or disappointed; by default I’d assume no more than the most tenuous of connections between press releases and actual scientific content.
(But I’m tempted to ask you, “What do you know—and why?”)
Just released.
Abstract:
Thanks!
I’d like to know where “accuracy ranging from 75 percent to 95 percent” in the press release came from.
Looking at the paper, I’m guessing it’s the histogram intersection (HI) measurement, which actually ranged from 50% to 95% with an average of 75%, so that’s one glaring error I could find in the first few minutes of looking at a paper in a field that I know next to nothing about. (A further guess is that the journalist thought 75% accuracy didn’t sound all that impressive, and so went on a hunt for a grander number, hitting on the 95%.)
Maybe I’m all wet, but what I’m taking from the paper is that it’s actually a null result? As in, some other researchers had theorized that the fine structure of synaptic connections was somehow “guided” by chemical signals, but the simulation in fact suggests that “randomly bumping into each other” is closer to the truth. This does seem to (maybe decisively) settle a debate which the authors say has gone on for decades; I’m wondering if the term “breakthrough” is warranted though.
It’s like describing as “a near perfect prediction”, the prediction that a tossed coin will come down heads with 50% probability. The 50% figure may be really precise, but that still tells you nothing about the next coin toss. The press release seems to confuse knowledge about a distribution with knowledge about individuals drawn from it.
As I understand it, what the paper, and Henry Markram as quoted in the press release, are actually saying is that their experiments show a distribution of connections that one would get by things randomly bumping into each other. This implies the predictions that there is no other organising mechanism in play yet to be discovered, and that to build an artificial network capable of the same functionality, one can build the connections in the same random manner. Or as they put it in the title, “Statistical connectivity provides a sufficient foundation for specific functional connectivity”.
Note that the title is a prediction from what they have observed, not the observation itself. Functional comparisions of real neural tissue and artificial networks constructed on these lines have not yet been done.