The brain as a dynamically active organ

Brembs, Björn

doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.12.011

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 172 publications

(81 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1C and D), reproducing the spontaneous choice behavior reported previously (Heisenberg, 2014;Quinn et al, 1974) and which indicated that current choices were independent of previous choices (chance). Increasing the number of choices from two to ten us- strategy, see (Brembs, 2020;Catania, 2010Catania, , 2009Catania, , 2008Corcoran et al, 2009;Jabłoński and Strausfeld, 2001;Jabloński and Strausfeld, 2000;Mitra et al, 2009) for examples) and many examples of adaptive behavioral variability (Brembs, 2020;Comer, 2009;Domenici et al, 2009Domenici et al, , 2008Gordus et al, 2015;Royan et al, 2010;Thompson and Wolpaw, 2014;Wolpaw et al, 1991). The variability we found here in photopreference is consistent with even this behavior, often described as iconically rigid, being more accurately characterized by flexible decision-making components, rather than simply constituting a stereotypic response (Gorostiza et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Behavioral variability, the observation that even under extremely well-controlled experimental circumstances, animals will not always behave identically, has been the bane of this endeavour. The sources of this variability are numerous, from neural noise or sensory ambiguity to spontaneous variations in behaviors to either 'try out' behavioral solutions to a problem or to become unpredictable in competitive situations (Beck et al, 2012;Brembs, 2020;Darshan et al, 2017;Koseki et al, 2016). So far, largely because of this variability, neuroscience has mainly made progress predicting behavior on the population level, by averaging out some of this variability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collective action or individual choice: Spontaneity and individuality contribute to decision-making inDrosophila

Steymans

Pujol-Lereis

Brembs

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our own unique character traits make our behavior consistent and define our individuality. Yet, this consistency does not entail that we behave repetitively like machines. Like humans, animals also combine personality traits with spontaneity to produce adaptive behavior: consistent, but not fully predictable. Here, we study an iconically rigid behavioral trait – insect phototaxis – that that nevertheless also contains both components of individuality and spontaneity. In a light/dark T-maze, approximately 70% of a group of Drosophila fruit flies choose the bright arm of the T-Maze, while the remaining 30% walk into the dark. Taking the photopositive and the photonegative subgroups and re-testing them reveals the spontaneous component: a similar 70-30 distribution emerges in each of the two subgroups. Increasing the number of choices to ten choices, reveals the individuality component: flies with extremely negative first choices were more likely to show photonegative behavior in subsequent choices and vice versa. General behavioral traits, independent of light/dark preference, contributed to the development of this individuality. The interaction of individuality and spontaneity together explains why group averages, even for such seemingly stereotypical behaviors, are poor predictors of individual choices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective action or individual choice: Spontaneity and individuality contribute to decision-making inDrosophila

Steymans

Pujol-Lereis

Brembs

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the level of the individual, there are few documented examples of rigid stereotypy (likely, because predictability is not an evolutionary stable strategy, see [ 11 , 48 – 54 ] for examples) and many examples of adaptive behavioral variability [ 11 , 55 – 61 ]. The variability we found here in photopreference is consistent with even this behavior, often described as iconically rigid, being more accurately characterized by flexible decision-making components, rather than simply constituting a stereotypic response [ 43 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Behavioral variability, the observation that even under extremely well-controlled experimental circumstances, animals will not always behave identically, has been the bane of this endeavor. The sources of this variability are numerous, from neural noise or sensory ambiguity to spontaneous variations in behaviors to either ‘try out’ behavioral solutions to a problem or to become unpredictable in competitive situations [ 8 – 11 ]. So far, largely because of this variability, neuroscience has mainly made progress predicting behavior on the population level, by averaging out some of this variability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective action or individual choice: Spontaneity and individuality contribute to decision-making in Drosophila

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our own unique character traits make our behavior consistent and define our individuality. Yet, this consistency does not entail that we behave repetitively like machines. Like humans, animals also combine personality traits with spontaneity to produce adaptive behavior: consistent, but not fully predictable. Here, we study an iconically rigid behavioral trait, insect phototaxis, that nevertheless also contains both components of individuality and spontaneity. In a light/dark T-maze, approximately 70% of a group of Drosophila fruit flies choose the bright arm of the T-Maze, while the remaining 30% walk into the dark. Taking the photopositive and the photonegative subgroups and re-testing them reveals the spontaneous component: a similar 70–30 distribution emerges in each of the two subgroups. Increasing the number of choices to ten choices, reveals the individuality component: flies with an extremely negative series of first choices were more likely to show photonegative behavior in subsequent choices and vice versa. General behavioral traits, independent of light/dark preference, contributed to the development of this individuality. The interaction of individuality and spontaneity together explains why group averages, even for such seemingly stereotypical behaviors, are poor predictors of individual choices.

show abstract

“…This has been shown experimentally through reports of visual hallucination in sensory-deprivation contexts (Soloman et al, 1957;Flynn, 1962;Raz, 2013). The brain's constant activity is also evident in brain-imaging studies: fMRI research has shown that task-specific neural activity typically amounts to just 1-2% of background brain activity in relevant areas and, thus, energyconsumption at rest is almost the same as during a demanding task (Raichle, 2010) (see Brembs, 2021 for a full overview of the brain as an endogenously active organ).…”

Section: Endogenous Activitymentioning

confidence: 91%

Naturalising Agent Causation

Potter¹,

Mitchell²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of agent causation - that a system like a living organism can be a cause of things in the world - is often seen as mysterious and deemed to be at odds with the physicalist thesis that is now commonly embraced in science and philosophy. Instead, the causal power of organisms is attributed to mechanistic components within the system or derived from the causal activity at the lowest level of physical description. In either case, the ‘agent’ itself (i.e., the system as a whole) is left out of the picture entirely, and agent causation is explained away. We argue that this is not the right way to think about causation in biology, or in systems more generally. We present a framework of eight criteria that we argue, collectively, describe a system that overcomes the challenges concerning agent causality, in an entirely naturalistic and non-mysterious way. They are: 1) Thermodynamic Autonomy, 2) Persistence, 3) Endogenous Activity, 4) Holistic Integration, 5) Low-Level Indeterminacy, 6) Multiple Realisability, 7) Historicity, 8) Agent-Level Normativity. Each criterion is taken to be dimensional rather than categorical, and thus we conclude with a short discussion on how researchers working on quantifying agency may use this multi-dimensional framework to situate and guide their research.

show abstract

The brain as a dynamically active organ

Cited by 21 publications

References 172 publications

Collective action or individual choice: Spontaneity and individuality contribute to decision-making inDrosophila

Collective action or individual choice: Spontaneity and individuality contribute to decision-making inDrosophila

Collective action or individual choice: Spontaneity and individuality contribute to decision-making in Drosophila

Naturalising Agent Causation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About