There are no explicit equations for the cerebellum traditionally also has access to a desired state ds (in particular, one can consider this a and forward DNI, respectively; L denotes the loss function. In addition, the inverse model of the of a motor area and sensory area, respectively; CB,CF denotes the computation of backward DNI Notation is largely consistent with section 2 of the main text: hm,hs denotes the hidden activity properties of the inverse model of the cerebellum can be set against those of forward DNI (red). Controller Neocortex Main model Cerebellum Synthesiser Forward Model Backward DNIInverse Model Forward DNI be summarised in table S1. In general, the likeness in formulation between DNI and the cerebellar internal model hypothesis can backward DNI where the main model is an motor-associated RNN. In fact, it was recently suggested that the cerebellum out that though the temporal case of forward DNI was not originally considered in [5], there remain learns to mimic the forward computations which then take place in the neocortex.

Overall, our work offers a novel perspective on the cerebellum as a brainneuronal observations while making several testable predictions across multiple mental observations. Moreover, our model also explains recent behavioural and learning while reducing ataxia-like behaviours, consistent with classical experishown to be cerebellar-dependent. In all tasks, we observe that ccRNNs facilitates and cognitive tasks (pattern recognition and caption generation) that have been network (ccRNN) model on a number of sensorimotor (line and digit drawing) tions from a cerebellar module. We test this cortico-cerebellar recurrent neural in which a recurrent cortical network receives online temporal feedback predicdemonstrate the potential of this framework we introduce a systems-level model lum, helps the cerebral cortex solve similar locking problems akin to DNIs.

How does our motor system solve the problem of anticipatory control in spite of a wide spectrum of response dynamics from different musculo-skeletal systems, transport delays as well as response latencies throughout the central nervous system? To a great extent, our highly-skilled motor responses are a result of a reactive feedback system, originating in the brain-stem and spinal cord, combined with a feed-forward anticipatory system, that is adaptively fine-tuned by sensory experience and originates in the cerebellum. Based on that interaction we design the counterfactual predictive control (CFPC) architecture, an anticipatory adaptive motor control scheme in which a feed-forward module, based on the cerebellum, steers an error feedback controller with counterfactual error signals. Those are signals that trigger reactions as actual errors would, but that do not code for any current or forthcoming errors. In order to determine the optimal learning strategy, we derive a novel learning rule for the feed-forward module that involves an eligibility trace and operates at the synaptic level. In particular, our eligibility trace provides a mechanism beyond co-incidence detection in that it convolves a history of prior synaptic inputs with error signals. In the context of cerebellar physiology, this solution implies that Purkinje cell synapses should generate eligibility traces using a forward model of the system being controlled. From an engineering perspective, CFPC provides a general-purpose anticipatory control architecture equipped with a learning rule that exploits the full dynamics of the closed-loop system.

How does our motor system solve the problem of anticipatory control in spite of a wide spectrum of response dynamics from different musculo-skeletal systems, transport delays as well as response latencies throughout the central nervous system? To a great extent, our highly-skilled motor responses are a result of a reactive feedback system, originating in the brain-stem and spinal cord, combined with a feed-forward anticipatory system, that is adaptively fine-tuned by sensory experience and originates in the cerebellum. Based on that interaction we design the counterfactual predictive control (CFPC) architecture, an anticipatory adaptive motor control scheme in which a feed-forward module, based on the cerebellum, steers an error feedback controller with counterfactual error signals. Those are signals that trigger reactions as actual errors would, but that do not code for any current of forthcoming errors. In order to determine the optimal learning strategy, we derive a novel learning rule for the feed-forward module that involves an eligibility trace and operates at the synaptic level. In particular, our eligibility trace provides a mechanism beyond co-incidence detection in that it convolves a history of prior synaptic inputs with error signals. In the context of cerebellar physiology, this solution implies that Purkinje cell synapses should generate eligibility traces using a forward model of the system being controlled. From an engineering perspective, CFPC provides a general-purpose anticipatory control architecture equipped with a learning rule that exploits the full dynamics of the closed-loop system.

In this paper we have focused on the backward (or feedback) DNI, but there is another interesting paradigm between two neural networks dubbed "forward" DNI. Here we describe this variant of the model and below its link to the cerebellum. The difference to backward DNI is that now the synthesiser predicts forward activity, not backward. Though more nuanced, the goal of forward DNI as presented in [5] is also to hasten learning. As an example, suppose we have a feedforward network as the main model and equip a backward synthesiser (one which predicts same layer error gradients) at each layer as well as a forward synthesiser which projects from the original network input x onto each layer.

Networksadjustingnetworks. In Proceedingsof" Distributed Adaptive Neural Information Processing", pages 197-208, 1990.

The brain solves the credit assignment problem remarkably well. For credit to be assigned across neural networks they must, in principle, wait for specific neural computations to finish. How the brain deals with this inherent locking problem has remained unclear. Deep learning methods suffer from similar locking constraints both on the forward and feedback phase. Recently, decoupled neural interfaces (DNIs) were introduced as a solution to the forward and feedback locking problems in deep networks.Here we propose that a specialised brain region, the cerebellum, helps the cerebral cortex solve similar locking problems akin to DNIs. To demonstrate the potential of this framework we introduce a systems-level model in which a recurrent cortical network receives online temporal feedback predictions from a cerebellar module. We test this cortico-cerebellar recurrent neural network (ccRNN) model on a number of sensorimotor (line and digit drawing) and cognitive tasks (pattern recognition and caption generation) that have been shown to be cerebellar-dependent. In all tasks, we observe that ccRNNs facilitates learning while reducing ataxia-like behaviours, consistent with classical experimental observations. Moreover, our model also explains recent behavioural and neuronal observations while making several testable predictions across multiple levels.Overall, our work offers a novel perspective on the cerebellum as a brain-wide decoupling machine for efficient credit assignment and opens a new avenue between deep learning and neuroscience.

Recent advances in general-purpose AI systems with attention-based transformers offer a potential window into how the neocortex and cerebellum, despite their relatively uniform circuit architectures, give rise to diverse functions and, ultimately, to human intelligence. This Perspective provides a cross-domain comparison between the brain and AI that goes beyond the traditional focus on visual processing, adopting the emerging perspecive of world-model-based computation. Here, we identify shared computational mechanisms in the attention-based neocortex and the non-attentional cerebellum: both predict future world events from past inputs and construct internal world models through prediction-error learning. These predictive world models are repurposed for seemingly distinct functions -- understanding in sensory processing and generation in motor processing -- enabling the brain to achieve multi-domain capabilities and human-like adaptive intelligence. Notably, attention-based AI has independently converged on a similar learning paradigm and world-model-based computation. We conclude that these shared mechanisms in both biological and artificial systems constitute a core computational foundation for realizing diverse functions including high-level intelligence, despite their relatively uniform circuit structures. Our theoretical insights bridge neuroscience and AI, advancing our understanding of the computational essence of intelligence.

How does our motor system solve the problem of anticipatory control in spite of a wide spectrum of response dynamics from different musculo-skeletal systems, transport delays as well as response latencies throughout the central nervous system? To a great extent, our highly-skilled motor responses are a result of a reactive feedback system, originating in the brain-stem and spinal cord, combined with a feed-forward anticipatory system, that is adaptively fine-tuned by sensory experience and originates in the cerebellum. Based on that interaction we design the counterfactual predictive control (CFPC) architecture, an anticipatory adaptive motor control scheme in which a feed-forward module, based on the cerebellum, steers an error feedback controller with counterfactual error signals. Those are signals that trigger reactions as actual errors would, but that do not code for any current of forthcoming errors. In order to determine the optimal learning strategy, we derive a novel learning rule for the feed-forward module that involves an eligibility trace and operates at the synaptic level. In particular, our eligibility trace provides a mechanism beyond co-incidence detection in that it convolves a history of prior synaptic inputs with error signals. In the context of cerebellar physiology, this solution implies that Purkinje cell synapses should generate eligibility traces using a forward model of the system being controlled. From an engineering perspective, CFPC provides a general-purpose anticipatory control architecture equipped with a learning rule that exploits the full dynamics of the closed-loop system.

The emergence of foundation models in neuroimaging is driven by the increasing availability of large-scale and heterogeneous brain imaging datasets. Recent advances in self-supervised learning, particularly reconstruction-based objectives, have demonstrated strong potential for pretraining models that generalize effectively across diverse downstream functional MRI (fMRI) tasks. In this study, we explore region-aware reconstruction strategies for a foundation model in resting-state fMRI, moving beyond approaches that rely on random region masking. Specifically, we introduce an ROI-guided masking strategy using the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL3), applied directly to full 4D fMRI volumes to selectively mask semantically coherent brain regions during self-supervised pretraining. Using the ADHD-200 dataset comprising 973 subjects with resting-state fMRI scans, we show that our method achieves a 4.23% improvement in classification accuracy for distinguishing healthy controls from individuals diagnosed with ADHD, compared to conventional random masking. Region-level attribution analysis reveals that brain volumes within the limbic region and cerebellum contribute most significantly to reconstruction fidelity and model representation. Our results demonstrate that masking anatomical regions during model pretraining not only enhances interpretability but also yields more robust and discriminative representations. In future work, we plan to extend this approach by evaluating it on additional neuroimaging datasets, and developing new loss functions explicitly derived from region-aware reconstruction objectives. These directions aim to further improve the robustness and interpretability of foundation models for functional neuroimaging.