"Rarely categorical, always high-dimensional: how the neural code changes along the cortical hierarchy", Posani et al. 2025
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.15.623878v4

"we systematically analyzed how cortical neurons encode cognitive, sensory, and movement variables across 43 cortical regions during a complex task (14,000+ units from the International Brain Laboratory public Brainwide Map data set) and studied how these properties change across the sensory-cognitive cortical hierarchy"

#neuroscience #IBL #InternationalBrainLaboratory

How do animals learn new rules? By systematically testing different behavioral strategies, guided by selective attn. to rule-relevant cues: https://rdcu.be/etlRV

Akin to in-context learning in AI models, strategy selection depends on the animals' "training set" (prior experience). And humans follow similar strategies and express neural representations with similar properties as in rats.

Fantastic work by Florian Bähner, Hazem Toutounji, Tzvetan Popov and many others - I'm just the person advertising!

I'm writing up a few things on the big debate around "What is an emotion?" and I'm crowd sourcing wisdom. I see two big axes. Am I missing any?

1) Arguments that we should reserve "emotion" words for cases in which we have evidence for subjective experience (ie humans). ala Joe LeDoux. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35079126/

2) Arguments about the criteria that differentiate emotions from other feelings (like hunger and tiredness). These relate to the Q: Does an airpuff to the eye evoke an emotion? (and all the discussion around this): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt3971
One argument that it does not: "emotion" should be reserved for situations that trigger cognitive appraisal. Emotions are not just triggered by stimuli, but also depend on context. An air puff to the eye will always be irritating.

In sum, in these debates, there's the 1) "evidence for subjective experience" dim. and (even when that evidence exists) the 2) "criteria to be an emotion" dim., which includes criteria like those in the science paper (valence, persistence, generalization) and cog appraisal.

Have I missed anything?

That is to say: I don't believe there are debates about the reality of the phenomena, just when to call them "emotion" versus some other type of "feeling" (or "affective state"). Often, defining the "phenomena of interest" is diff. from theories about it (eg the thermometer versus thermodynamics). These are a bit more intertwined in emotion research. In my description, does anything jump out at you as missing from debates about the phenomena (not the theories)?

Thanks!

"Every note that El’Zabar plays, in the Ethnic Heritage Ensemble or in any other project, adds a new piece to the heritage that he’s helping build."

The Music of Kahil El’Zabar, Jazz’s Elder Statesman:

https://daily.bandcamp.com/lists/the-music-of-kahil-elzabar-jazzs-elder-statesman

Calling all neuroscience postdocs!

Come and share your work with the London neuroscience community. No CVs, publication records or recommendation letters needed.

Learn more about SWC’s Emerging Neuroscientists Seminar Series and apply by 10 July:

https://www.sainsburywellcome.org/web/content/emerging-neuroscientists-seminar-series-enss

Someone defending their PhD thesis next week slacked the group this morning with this link.

https://research.wmz.ninja/projects/phd/index.html

#Academia

I wrote a book: "The brain, in theory" (to be published by Princeton University Press).

First chapter and TOC:
http://romainbrette.fr/WordPress3/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-brain-in-theory-TOC-and-first-chapter.pdf