11/2008aaai 20081 circuit sharing and the implementation of intelligent systems michael l. anderson...
TRANSCRIPT
11/2008 AAAI 2008 1
Circuit sharing and the implementation of intelligent systems
Michael L. Anderson
Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesProgram in Neuroscience and Cognitive Science
University of MarylandCollege Park, MD USA
Department of PsychologyFranklin & Marshall College
Lancaster, PA USA
Cognitive Architecture
What is the overall functional architecture of the brain?
11/2008 AAAI 2008 2
Cognitive Architecture
The classical, and still most widely accepted answer:
1.Low-level localization of function
2.High-level localization of domain
11/2008 AAAI 2008 3
4
Low-level localization of function
Penfield’s Homunculus11/2008 AAAI 2008
5
High-level localization of
domain
Brodmann map showing functional domains11/2008 AAAI 2008
More abstractly
11/2008 AAAI 2008 6
1
3
5
2
4
6
Classical c.a. (modularity?) suggests:
• Each brain area has a fixed working
• Each function (and class of functions) is implemented in dedicated neural structures
As opposed to
11/2008 AAAI 2008 7
Holism (connectionist c.a.?) suggests:
• Each brain area has a flexible working
• Each function (or class of functions) is implemented in overlapping neural structures
1
3
5
2
4
6
As opposed to
11/2008 AAAI 2008 8
Redeployment suggests:
• Each brain area has a fixed working
• Each function (or class of functions) is implemented in overlapping neural structures
1
3
5
2
4
6
9
What’s redeployment?
Evolutionary considerations favor a “component re-use” model.
Components evolved for one cognitive function are “exapted” for later uses.
However, the original functionality is not lost—hence “redeployment” rather than exaptation.
11/2008 AAAI 2008
Evolution via redeployment
11/2008 AAAI 2008 10
11/2008 AAAI 2008 11
Modularity vs. Holism vs. Redeployment
1
3
5
2
4
6
1
3
5
2
4
6
1
3
5
2
4
6
Empirical evidence
• Database of 665 (subtraction-based) imaging experiments in 20 cognitive domains.
• “Functional connectivity” analysis of 472 experiments in 8 cognitive domains (all domains with > 30 experiments).
1211/2008 AAAI 2008
Functional connectivity
1) Choose a spatial segmentation of the brain (we currently use Brodmann areas)
2) Choose an independent variable of interest (cognitive domain)
3) Determine which regions are statistically likely to be co-active, for different levels of the I.V.
1311/2008 AAAI 2008
Step 3 in more detail
A. Calculate chance probability (Q) of co-activation for each BA pair
B. In each domain, determine observed probability (K) of co-activation of each BA pair
C. Where there is a significant difference between Q and K (Χ2), this is considered a “functional connection”
1411/2008 AAAI 2008
Functional cooperation
15
• Functional connection indicates areas that cooperate in service of cognition
11/2008 AAAI 2008
AB -AB
Domain Co-active in domain
Not co-active in domain
-Domain Co-active not in domain
Not co-active not in domain
List of domains
16
Domain N
Action 56
Attention 77
Emotion 42
Language 165
Memory 88
Mental imagery 31
Reasoning 33
Visual perception 57
11/2008 AAAI 2008
Functional cooperation
We can make graphs of these cooperation links.
1711/2008 AAAI 2008
ActiveArea CoActiveAreaExpected CoactProb
Observed CoactProb
ChiSquare
BA10L BA32L 0.019 0.036 8.34
BA10L BA32R 0.015 0.054 61.30
BA10L BA40L 0.029 0.054 13.77
BA10L BA40R 0.016 0.036 13.82
BA10L BA44L 0.018 0.036 10.77
BA10L BA44R 0.012 0.036 28.86
Action
18
Attention
19
Language
20
Comparing Domain Complexes
2111/2008 AAAI 2008
Can compare many things, for instance:– Node overlap
• Indicates B.A.s shared by different domain complexes
– Edge overlap• Indicates functional connectivity/cooperation
shared by different domain complexes
– Network topology• May give clues about nature of function
implementation
Node vs. Edge Overlap
Use Dice’s coefficient: 2(o1,2)/(n1+n2)
Predictions:– Modularity: e, n– Holism: E, N– Redeployment: e, N
2211/2008 AAAI 2008
11/2008 AAAI 2008 23
Modularity vs. Holism vs. Redeployment
1
3
5
2
4
6
1
3
5
2
4
6
1
3
5
2
4
6
Nodes vs. Edges
11/2008 AAAI 2008 24
Nodes vs. Edges
11/2008 AAAI 2008 25
Nodes vs. Edges
11/2008 AAAI 2008 26
Nodes vs. Edges
11/2008 AAAI 2008 27
p << 0.001
But . . .
Maybe this result is just an artifact
• Given a small number of nodes (84)
• Large number of possible edges (3486)
• Get high node overlap and low edge overlap just by chance
11/2008 AAAI 2008 28
11/2008 AAAI 2008 29
p << 0.001
30
4 implications1. Give up on modularity in its classic form
2. Need to develop a domain-neutral vocabulary for cognitive science
3. Assigning computational/cognitive roles to brain areas will require cross-domain modeling
4. Should consider cross-domain uses when designing cognitive components
11/2008 AAAI 2008
31
4 implications1. Give up on modularity in its classic form
2. Need to develop a domain-neutral vocabulary for cognitive science
3. Assigning computational/cognitive roles to brain areas will require cross-domain modeling
4. Should consider cross-domain uses when designing cognitive components
11/2008 AAAI 2008
Divergence in implementation
11/2008 AAAI 2008 32
Modular architectures support functional assignment by decomposition and analysis
Convergence in implementation
11/2008 AAAI 2008 33
Complex system
Functional Complex 2
Functional Complex 3
Component 1
Functional Complex 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Component 5
Component 6
Sub-component 5
Sub-component 4
Sub-component 3
Sub-component 2
Sub-component 6 . . .
Sub-component 1
34
Cross-domain modeling
1. Cannot determine what a sub-component should do by considering only an individual task or task category, as been the normal practice.
2. Must begin to consider at design time the use of low-level components across multiple tasks in multiple domains.
11/2008 AAAI 2008
35
Cross-domain modeling (2)
To do this:
1. Model each function of the system
2. Map sub-functions to a limited set of components
3. Constraint: each point of overlap must assign same (abstract) sub-function to each component
11/2008 AAAI 2008
36
Cross-domain modeling (3)
11/2008 AAAI 2008
• Anderson, M.L. (2007). The massive redeployment hypothesis and the functional topography of the brain. Philosophical Psychology, 21(2): 143-174.
• Anderson, M.L. (2007). Evolution of cognitive function via redeployment of brain areas. The Neuroscientist, 13(1): 13-21.
• Anderson, M. L. (2007). Massive redeployment, exaptation, and the functional integration of cognitive operations. Synthese 159(3): 329-45.
• Anderson, M.L. (2008). Circuit sharing and the implementation of intelligent systems. Connection Science, 20(4): 239-51.
http://www.agcognition.org
11/2008 AAAI 2008 37