Testing the Tools of Systems Neuroscience on Artificial Neural Networks
This addresses a methodological gap in neuroscience by proposing a way to validate tools, but it is incremental as it builds on existing ANN models without introducing new computational methods.
The paper argues that artificial neural networks (ANNs) should be used to test the effectiveness of common analysis tools in systems neuroscience, as these tools currently lack empirical evidence for quickly identifying phenomena of interest, and proposes a roadmap for such testing to expedite progress in brain study.
Neuroscientists apply a range of common analysis tools to recorded neural activity in order to glean insights into how neural circuits implement computations. Despite the fact that these tools shape the progress of the field as a whole, we have little empirical evidence that they are effective at quickly identifying the phenomena of interest. Here I argue that these tools should be explicitly tested and that artificial neural networks (ANNs) are an appropriate testing grounds for them. The recent resurgence of the use of ANNs as models of everything from perception to memory to motor control stems from a rough similarity between artificial and biological neural networks and the ability to train these networks to perform complex high-dimensional tasks. These properties, combined with the ability to perfectly observe and manipulate these systems, makes them well-suited for vetting the tools of systems and cognitive neuroscience. I provide here both a roadmap for performing this testing and a list of tools that are suitable to be tested on ANNs. Using ANNs to reflect on the extent to which these tools provide a productive understanding of neural systems -- and on exactly what understanding should mean here -- has the potential to expedite progress in the study of the brain.