This basic question in the theory of knowledge seems to be beyond the scope of experimental investigation. An accessible version of this question is whether different observers of the same sense data have the same neural representation of these data: how much of the neural code is universal, and how much is individual? Differences in the neural codes of different individuals may arise from various sources: First, different individuals may use different'vocabularies' of coding symbols. Second, they may use the same symbols to encode different stimulus features. Third, they may have different latencies, so they'say' the same things at slightly different times.

The model structure is an abstrac- tion of the hippocampus or the olfactory cortex. We propose a simple generalized Hebbian rule, using temporal-activity-dependent LTP and LTD, to encode both magnitudes and phases of oscillatory patterns into the synapses in the network. After learning, the model responds resonantly to inputs which have been learned (or, for networks which operate essentially linearly, to linear combinations of learned inputs), but negligibly to other input patterns. Encoding both amplitude and phase enhances computational capacity, for which the price is having to learn both the excitatory-to-excitatory and the excitatory-to-inhibitory connections. Our model puts contraints on the form of the learning kernal A(r) that should be experimenally observed, e.g., for small oscillation frequencies, it requires that the overall LTP dominates the overall LTD, but this requirement should be modified if the stored oscillations are of high frequencies.

Experimental data have shown that synapses are heterogeneous: different synapses respond with different sequences of amplitudes of postsynaptic responses to the same spike train. Neither the role of synaptic dynamics itself nor the role of the heterogeneity of synaptic dynamics for computations in neural circuits is well understood. We present in this article methods that make it feasible to compute for a given synapse with known synaptic parameters the spike train that is optimally fitted to the synapse, for example in the sense that it produces the largest sum of postsynaptic responses. To our surprise we find that most of these optimally fitted spike trains match common firing patterns of specific types of neurons that are discussed in the literature. 1 Introduction A large number of experimental studies have shown that biological synapses have an inherent dynamics, which controls how the pattern of amplitudes of postsynaptic responses depends on the temporal pattern of the incoming spike train. Various quantitative models have been proposed involving a small number of characteristic parameters, that allow us to predict the response of a given synapse to a given spike train once proper values for these characteristic synaptic parameters have been found. The analysis of this article is based on the model of [1], where three parameters U, F, D control the dynamics of a synapse and a fourth parameter A - which corresponds to the synaptic "weight" in static synapse models - scales the absolute sizes of the postsynaptic responses. The resulting model predicts the amplitude Ak for the kth spike in a spike train with interspike intervals (lSI's) .60

Substantial data support a temporal difference (TO) model of dopamine (OA) neuron activity in which the cells provide a global error signal for reinforcement learning. However, in certain circumstances, OA activity seems anomalous under the TO model, responding to non-rewarding stimuli. We address these anomalies by suggesting that OA cells multiplex information about reward bonuses, including Sutton's exploration bonuses and Ng et al's non-distorting shaping bonuses. We interpret this additional role for OA in terms of the unconditional attentional and psychomotor effects of dopamine, having the computational role of guiding exploration. 1 Introduction Much evidence suggests that dopamine cells in the primate midbrain play an important role in reward and action learning. Electrophysiological studies support a theory that OA cells signal a global prediction error for summed future reward in appetitive conditioning tasks (Montague et al, 1996; Schultz et al, 1997), in the form of a temporal difference prediction error term.

Most models of spatial representations in the cortex assume cells with limited receptive fields that are defined in a particular egocentric frame of reference. However, cells outside of primary sensory cortex are either gain modulated by postural input or partially shifting. We show that solving classical spatial tasks, like sensory prediction, multi-sensory integration, sensory-motor transformation and motor control requires more complicated intermediate representations that are not invariant in one frame of reference. We present an iterative basis function map that performs these spatial tasks optimally with gain modulated and partially shifting units, and tests it against neurophysiological and neuropsychological data. In order to perform an action directed toward an object, it is necessary to have a representation of its spatial location.

We present a computational model of the neural mechanisms in the parietal and temporal lobes that support spatial navigation, recall of scenes and imagery of the products of recall. Long term representations are stored in the hippocampus, and are associated with local spatial and object-related features in the parahippocampal region. Viewer-centered representations are dynamically generated from long term memory in the parietal part of the model. The model thereby simulates recall and imagery of locations and objects in complex environments. After parietal damage, the model exhibits hemispatial neglect in mental imagery that rotates with the imagined perspective of the observer, as in the famous Milan Square experiment [1]. Our model makes novel predictions for the neural representations in the parahippocampal and parietal regions and for behavior in healthy volunteers and neuropsychological patients.

Neurons in area V4 have relatively large receptive fields (RFs), so multiple visual features are simultaneously "seen" by these cells. Recordings from single V 4 neurons suggest that simultaneously presented stimuli compete to set the output firing rate, and that attention acts to isolate individual features by biasing the competition in favor of the attended object. We propose that both stimulus competition and attentional biasing arise from the spatial segregation of afferent synapses onto different regions of the excitable dendritic tree of V 4 neurons. The pattern of feedforward, stimulus-driven inputs follows from a Hebbian rule: excitatory afferents with similar RFs tend to group together on the dendritic tree, avoiding randomly located inhibitory inputs with similar RFs. The same principle guides the formation of inputs that mediate attentional modulation.

In memory consolidation, declarative memories which initially require the hippocampus for their recall, ultimately become independent of it. Consolidation has been the focus of numerous experimental and qualitative modeling studies, but only little quantitative exploration. We present a consolidation model in which hierarchical connections in the cortex, that initially instantiate purely semantic information acquired through probabilistic unsupervised learning, come to instantiate episodic information as well. The hippocampus is responsible for helping complete partial input patterns before consolidation is complete, while also training the cortex to perform appropriate completion by itself.

Although connectionist models have provided insights into the nature of perception and motor control, connectionist accounts of higher cognition seldom go beyond an implementation of traditional symbol-processing theories. We describe a connectionist constraint satisfaction model of how people solve anagram problems. The model exploits statistics of English orthography, but also addresses the interplay of sub symbolic and symbolic computation by a mechanism that extracts approximate symbolic representations (partial orderings of letters) from sub symbolic structures and injects the extracted representation back into the model to assist in the solution of the anagram. We show the computational benefit of this extraction-injection process and discuss its relationship to conscious mental processes and working memory. We also account for experimental data concerning the difficulty of anagram solution based on the orthographic structure of the anagram string and the target word.

For example, priming in a subliminal perception task was found to be confined to a quadrant of the visual field [16]. The notion that the representation of an object may be tied to a particular location in the visual field where it is first observed is compatible with the concept of object file, a hypothetical record created by the visual system for every encountered object, which persists as long as the object is observed. Moreover, location (as it figures in the CoF model) should be interpreted relative to the focus of attention, rather than retinotopically [17]. The idea that global relationships (hence, large-scale structure) have precedence over local ones [18], which is central to our approach, has withstood extensive testing in the past two decades. Even with the perceptual salience of the global and local structure equated, subjects are able to process the relations among elements before the elements themselves are identified [19]. More generally, humans are limited in their ability to represent spatial structure, in that the representation of spatial relations requires spatial attention.