ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Two views of the brain are reconciled by a unifying principle of maximal information processing.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is selective pressure on brains to maximize computational capacity and adaptability in an unpredictable world. Prior work suggests that this demand is satisfied by a regime called criticality, which has emerged as a powerful, unifying framework for understanding how computation can arise in biological systems. However, this framework has been confined to high-dimensional network models. At first glance, this appears irreconcilable with many of the foundational, low dimensional dynamical models that have driven progress in theoretical and computational neuroscience for a century. If criticality is a universal principle, then all models that accurately capture significant aspects of brain function should be constrained by the same fact. Lacking a definition of criticality in low-dimensional dynamical systems, this has been impossible to evaluate. Here, we develop a mathematical definition of criticality that transcends dimensionality by recognizing temporal scale invariance as analogous to spatial scale invariance that defines criticality in large systems. We demonstrate that there are two mechanistically distinct sources of criticality at bifurcations, one deterministic and one that emerges from noise fluctuations. Further, we show that some but not all canonical bifurcations in neural models exhibit criticality, and only a subset of these are biologically plausible. We conduct numerical analyses demonstrating that information processing capacity peaks at critical bifurcations, and evaluate which historically influential neural models contain these bifurcations. Our results establish criticality as a universal neurobiological principle that is accessible to systems of any dimensionality. This unifies disparate modeling approaches under a single computational framework and suggests that optimal information processing emerges not from model-specific mechanisms but from fundamental properties of critical dynamics themselves.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.