Zero-shot counting with a dual-stream neural network model

Deep neural networks have provided a computational framework for understanding object recognition, grounded in the neurophysiology of the primate ventral stream, but fail to account for how we process relational aspects of a scene. For example, deep neural networks fail at problems that involve enumerating the number of elements in an array, a problem that in humans relies on parietal cortex. Here, we build a 'dual-stream' neural network model which, equipped with both dorsal and ventral streams, can generalise its counting ability to wholly novel items ('zero-shot' counting). In doing so, it forms spatial response fields and lognormal number codes that resemble those observed in macaque posterior parietal cortex. We use the dual-stream network to make successful predictions about behavioural studies of the human gaze during similar counting tasks.

How the EU Became World Champion in Democratic Regulation of Artificial Intelligence · Dataetisk Tænkehandletank

European entrepreneurs and their supporters are reluctant about new tight regulation of artificial intelligence, AI,...

Sphinx-Gallery — Sphinx-Gallery 0.14.0-git documentation

Spatially embedded recurrent neural networks reveal widespread links between structural and functional neuroscience findings - Nature Machine Intelligence

A fundamental question in neuroscience is what are the constraints that shape the structural and functional organization of the brain. By bringing biological cost constraints into the optimization process of artificial neural networks, Achterberg, Akarca and colleagues uncover the joint principle underlying a large set of neuroscientific findings.

Results of the ISMRM 2020 joint Reproducible Research & Quantitative MR study groups reproducibility challenge on phantom and human brain T1 mapping

Boudreau et al., (2023). Results of the ISMRM 2020 joint Reproducible Research & Quantitative MR study groups reproducibility challenge on phantom and human brain T1 mapping. NeuroLibre Reproducible Preprints, 14, https://doi.org/10.55458/neurolibre.00014

Job offers – Soda – Computational and mathematical methods to understand health and society with data

Computational reproducibility of Jupyter notebooks from biomedical publications

Jupyter notebooks facilitate the bundling of executable code with its documentation and output in one interactive environment, and they represent a popular mechanism to document and share computational workflows. The reproducibility of computational aspects of research is a key component of scientific reproducibility but has not yet been assessed at scale for Jupyter notebooks associated with biomedical publications. We address computational reproducibility at two levels: First, using fully automated workflows, we analyzed the computational reproducibility of Jupyter notebooks related to publications indexed in PubMed Central. We identified such notebooks by mining the articles full text, locating them on GitHub and re-running them in an environment as close to the original as possible. We documented reproduction success and exceptions and explored relationships between notebook reproducibility and variables related to the notebooks or publications. Second, this study represents a reproducibility attempt in and of itself, using essentially the same methodology twice on PubMed Central over two years. Out of 27271 notebooks from 2660 GitHub repositories associated with 3467 articles, 22578 notebooks were written in Python, including 15817 that had their dependencies declared in standard requirement files and that we attempted to re-run automatically. For 10388 of these, all declared dependencies could be installed successfully, and we re-ran them to assess reproducibility. Of these, 1203 notebooks ran through without any errors, including 879 that produced results identical to those reported in the original notebook and 324 for which our results differed from the originally reported ones. Running the other notebooks resulted in exceptions. We zoom in on common problems, highlight trends and discuss potential improvements to Jupyter-related workflows associated with biomedical publications.