Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32477089›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in computational neuroscience2020

Crossing the Cleft: Communication Challenges Between Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence.

Frances S Chance, James B Aimone, Srideep S Musuvathy, Michael R Smith, Craig M Vineyard, Felix Wang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Neural dynamics of robust legged robots.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Frances S ChanceDepartment of Cognitive and Emerging Computing, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, United States.
James B AimoneDepartment of Cognitive and Emerging Computing, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, United States.
Srideep S MusuvathyDepartment of Cognitive and Emerging Computing, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, United States.
Michael R SmithAll-Source Analytics Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, United States.
Craig M VineyardDepartment of Cognitive and Emerging Computing, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, United States.
Felix WangDepartment of Cognitive and Emerging Computing, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, neuroscience principles have heavily influenced artificial intelligence (AI), for example the influence of the perceptron model, essentially a simple model of a biological neuron, on artificial neural networks. More recently, notable recent AI advances, for example the growing popularity of reinforcement learning, often appear more aligned with cognitive neuroscience or psychology, focusing on function at a relatively abstract level. At the same time, neuroscience stands poised to enter a new era of large-scale high-resolution data and appears more focused on underlying neural mechanisms or architectures that can, at times, seem rather removed from functional descriptions. While this might seem to foretell a new generation of AI approaches arising from a deeper exploration of neuroscience specifically for AI, the most direct path for achieving this is unclear. Here we discuss cultural differences between the two fields, including divergent priorities that should be considered when leveraging modern-day neuroscience for AI. For example, the two fields feed two very different applications that at times require potentially conflicting perspectives. We highlight small but significant cultural shifts that we feel would greatly facilitate increased synergy between the two fields.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceartificial neural networkdeep learningneural-inspired algorithmsneuromorphic

Identifiers

PMID32477089
PMCPMC7232604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.