Mapping and analyzing the brain at the level of neural circuitry – “human connectomics” – is hotter than ever. Many scientists think that by mapping neuronal connections in the brain, we will both better understand cognition and better be able to treat any deficits. Talking of its $40 billion Human Connectome Project, the National Institute of Health says it “will lead to major advances in our understanding of what makes us uniquely human and will set the stage for future studies of abnormal brain circuits in many neurological and psychiatric disorders.”
But is it the right path for cognitive neuroscientists? That was the question for the packed house at Monday’s Great Debate at the CNS annual conference in New York. On one side was Moritz Helmstaedter of the Max Planck Institute, arguing that understanding neuronal circuit structure is key to modeling the mind. On the other side was Anthony Movshon of NYU, arguing that functional models that carefully analyze behavior are the key.
Who won? You be the judge (and see our small informal Twitter poll results below). Watch them duke it out in the debate, moderated by David Poeppel (Max Planck Institute & NYU).
Highlights:
Jump from 29 mentions of “Connectomics” 2000-05 to 4910 2011-16 – @davidpoeppel introducing Great Debate at #CNS2016
— CNS News (@CogNeuroNews) April 4, 2016
“This debate is going to be as short as the #c.elegans…short worm, short debate.” #CNS2016 pic.twitter.com/lzLzpHq9Kv
— Merage Ghane (@MerageG) April 4, 2016
Connectome pics are nothing more than “seductive pictures” like early ones of Descartes to deduce function from structure -Movshon #CNS2016
— CNS News (@CogNeuroNews) April 4, 2016
Helmstaedter to Movshon: How do you know what the right level of detail is? How do you know neurons, connections are not required? #CNS2016
— CNS News (@CogNeuroNews) April 4, 2016
Movshon: Take Beethoven, precise vibrational pattern of every bow on every string is not instrumental (ha!) Need something broader #CNS2016
— CNS News (@CogNeuroNews) April 4, 2016
“Connectomics provides a way to restrain hypothesis when studying the CNS.” -Moritz Helmstaedter on the Connectome debate #CNS2016
— Fernanda Pérez Gay (@fhernandhah) April 4, 2016
Digging the analogy to the Human #Genome Project in the Connectomics Debate – idea of means v. ends, tool v. (unexpected) outcomes #CNS2016
— CNS News (@CogNeuroNews) April 4, 2016
Helmstaedter: “Measure and we’ll know”: Don’t yet know level of descriptive detail need, would like to measure rather than assuming #CNS2016
— CNS News (@CogNeuroNews) April 4, 2016
Movshon: Nothing in neuroscience makes sense except in light of behavior #CNS2016
— CNS News (@CogNeuroNews) April 4, 2016
.@davidpoeppel in sum:
Circuit level is right– algorithm via anatomy
Circuit level incoherent– algorithm via analysis of behavior #CNS2016— CNS News (@CogNeuroNews) April 4, 2016
#CNS2016 Debate Poll: Who do you think won the Great Debate on Connectomics today? cc @davidpoeppel
VOTE!— CNS News (@CogNeuroNews) April 4, 2016
-Lisa M.P. Munoz