Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41143209›Full record

ArticleNature machine intelligence2025

Single-unit activations confer inductive biases for emergent circuit solutions to cognitive tasks.

Pavel Tolmachev, Tatiana A Engel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature machine intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Pavel TolmachevPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6024-0135
Tatiana A EngelPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5842-9406

Funding

Multiscale computational frameworks for integrating large-scale cortical dynamics, connectivity, and behaviorRF1DA055666 · NIDA · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI ENGEL, TATIANA · 2021 to 2021
$1.3M
NIDA NIH HHS RF1 DA055666
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Trained recurrent neural networks (RNNs) have become the leading framework for modelling neural dynamics in the brain, owing to their capacity to mimic how population-level computations arise from interactions among many units with heterogeneous responses. RNN units are commonly modelled using various nonlinear activation functions, assuming these architectural differences do not affect emerging task solutions. Here, contrary to this view, we show that single-unit activation functions confer inductive biases that influence the geometry of neural population trajectories, single-unit selectivity and fixed-point configurations. Using a model distillation approach, we find that differences in neural representations and dynamics reflect qualitatively distinct circuit solutions to cognitive tasks emerging in RNNs with different activation functions, leading to disparate generalization behaviour on out-of-distribution inputs. Our results show that seemingly minor architectural differences provide strong inductive biases for task solutions, raising a question about which RNN architectures better align with mechanisms of task execution in biological networks.

Indexed as

DecisionDynamical systemsNetwork modelsNeural circuits

Identifiers

PMID41143209
PMCPMC12552134

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.