Action and Language Mechanisms in the Brain: Data, Models and Neuroinformatics
We assess the challenges of studying action and language mechanisms in the brain, both singly and in relation to each other to provide a novel perspective on neuroinformatics, integrating the development of databases for encoding – separately or together – neurocomputational models and empirical data that serve systems and cognitive neuroscience.
KeywordsLinking models and experiments Models, neurocomputational Action and the brain Language and the brain Mirror systems Multi-level data Multi-level models Databasing empirical data Federation of databases Collaboratory workspaces
Acknowledgement, Discussion Groups and Workshop Participants
The present paper is based on discussions held on Wednesday July 27, as part of the Workshop on “Action, Language and Neuroinformatics” held on July 25–27, 2011, in Los Angeles under the aegis of the USC Brain Project of the University of Southern California, and organized by Michael A. Arbib. The Workshop was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0924674.
There were six discussion groups, three (1a,b,c) meeting in parallel in the morning and three (2a,b,c) in the afternoon. The participants of the Workshop were divided into three groups, one each on Action, Language, and Neuroinformatics. The discussion groups were then organized as follows. The name of the rapporteur for each session is marked in Bold. The present paper is based on the integration of their six reports.
1a. Half the Action group + half the Neuroinformatics group: assessing the model-data integration and neuroinformatics needs of the Action group: Bonaiuto, Oztop, Demiris, Vanduffel, Arbib, Marques, Bohland.
1b. Half the Neurolinguistics group + the other half of the Neuroinformatics group: assessing the model-data integration and neuroinformatics needs of the Neurolinguistics group: Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Small, MacWhinney, Miikkulainen, Nielsen, Fox, Barrès, Schuler.
1c. The other half of the Action group + the other half of the Neurolinguistics group: Defining shared modeling challenges and the development of a shared conceptual framework. Kemmerer, Aziz-Zadeh, Cartmill, Gasser, Grosvald, Wood, Kempen, Lee, Schilling.
2a. Action group: What are the key data and/or conceptual issues ripe for modeling; what are the key lines of modeling that hold most promise to address these data/issues? Oztop, Demiris, Vanduffel, Cartmill, Arbib, Aziz-Zadeh, Gasser, Schilling, Wood.
2b. Neurolinguistics group: What are the key data and/or conceptual issues ripe for modeling; what are the key lines of modeling that hold most promise to address these data/issues? MacWhinney, Kempen, Grosvald, Small, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Miikkulainen. Kemmerer, Lee, Barres
2c. Neuroinformatics group: What tools are ripe for sharing, or should be ripened? What are promising lines for federation? Nielsen, Marques, Bohland, Bonaiuto, Bota, Fox, Schuler.
Brief biosketches of the participants, access to selected papers, and abstracts of their talks may be found at the Workshop Website: http://uscbp.usc.edu/mediawiki/index.php/2011_Workshop.
- Alday, P., Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2013). Towards a computational model of actor-based language comprehension. Neuroinformatics. doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9198-x.
- Arbib, M. A. (1981). Perceptual structures and distributed motor control. In V. B. Brooks (Ed.), Handbook of physiology — the nervous system II. Motor control (pp. 1449–1480). Bethesda: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
- Arbib, M. A. (2012). How the brain got language: the mirror system hypothesis. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Arbib, M. A., Ghanesh, V., Gasser, B. (2014a). Dyadic brain modeling, ontogenetic ritualization of gesture in apes, and the contributions of primate mirror neuron systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, to appear.Google Scholar
- Arbib, M. A., Plangprasopchok, A., Bonaiuto, J. J., Schuler R. E. (2014b). A Neuroinformatics of brain modeling and its implementation in the Brain Operation Database BODB. Neuroinformatics. doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9209-y.
- Aziz-Zadeh, L., Sheng, T., Liew, S.-L., Damasio, H. (2011). Understanding otherness: the neural bases of action comprehension and pain empathy in a congenital amputee. Cerebral Cortex, 4, 811–819.Google Scholar
- Bandrowski, A., Gupta, A., Gupta, A., Larson, S., Martone, M. (2012). Exploring mammalian brain connectivity using NeuroLex. Neuroinformatics 2012 Abstracts: http://www.neuroinformatics2012.org/abstracts/exploring-mammalian-brain-connectivity-using-neurolex.
- Barrès, V., Lee, J. (2013). Template construction grammar: from visual scene description to language comprehension and agrammatism. Neuroinformatics. doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9197-y.
- Bohland, J., Myers, E., Kim, E. (2013). An informatics approach to integrating genetic and neurological data in speech and language neuroscience. Neuroinformatics. doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9201-6.
- Clifton, C., & Staub, A. (2008). Parallelism and competition in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 234–250.Google Scholar
- Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Debener, S., Ullsperger, M., Siegel, M., Fiehler, K., Cramon, D. Y., & Engel, A. K. (2005). Trial-by-trial coupling of concurrent electroencephalogram and functional magnetic resonance imaging identifies the dynamics of performance monitoring. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 11730–11737.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Demiris, Y., Aziz-Zadeh, L. A., Bonaiuto, J. J. (2013). Information processing in the mirror neuron system in primates and machines. Neuroinformatics. doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9200-7.
- Fisher, S., & Scharff, C. (2009). FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language. Trends in Genetics, 25.Google Scholar
- Frishkoff, G. A., Sydes, J., Mueller, K., Frank, R., Curran, T, et al. (2011). Minimal Information for Neural Electromagnetic Ontologies (MINEMO): a standards-compliant method for analysis and integration of event-related potentials (ERP) data. Standards in Genomic Sciences, 5(2): 211–223.Google Scholar
- Friston, K. J., Ashburner, J., Kiebel, S. J., Nichols, T. E., Penny, W. D. (Eds.) (2007). Statistical parametric mapping: the analysis of functional brain images. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Goddard, N. H., Ml, H., Howell, F., Cornelis, H., Shankar, K., & Beeman, D. (2001). Towards NeuroML: model description methods for collaborative modelling in neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 356, 1209–1228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language & Cognitive Processes, 75, 244–285.Google Scholar
- Kempen, G. (2013). Prolegomena to a neurocomputational architecture for human grammatical encoding and decoding. Neuroinformatics. doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9191-4.
- Kennedy, D. N. (2010). Making connections in the connectome era. Neuroinformatics, 8, 61–62.Google Scholar
- MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- MacWhinney, B. (2000). The childes project: tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- MacWhinney, B. (2008). How mental models encode embodied linguistic perspectives. In R. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney, & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action (pp. 369–410). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- MacWhinney. (2011). The logic of the unified model. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, F. Å. (2005). Mass meta-analysis in Talairach space. In L. K. Saul, Y. Weiss, & L. Bottou (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (17th ed., pp. 985–992). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, F. Å. (2013). Brede tools and federating online neuroinformatics databases. Neuroinformatics.doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9183-4.
- Palmer, M. (2009). Semlink: linking PropBank, VerbNet and FrameNet. Proceedings of the Generative Lexicon Conference. Sept. 2009, Pisa, Italy: GenLex-09: 580–90.Google Scholar
- Peeters, R., Simone, L., Nelissen, K., Fabbri-Destro, M., Vanduffel, W., et al. (2009). The representation of tool use in humans and monkeys: common and uniquely human features. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 11523–39.Google Scholar
- Poizner, H., Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1987). What the hands reveal about the brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2008). Mirrors in the brain: how our minds share actions, emotions, and experience (Translated from the Italian by Frances Anderson). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sagotsky, J. A., Zhang, L., Wang, Z., Martin, S., & Deisboeck, T. S. (2008). Life Sciences and the web: a new era for collaboration. Molecular Systems Biology, 4.Google Scholar
- Sobolev, A., Leonhardt, A., Rautenberg, P., Kellner, C., Herz, A., Wachtler, T. (2012). Cloud services and a data API for electrophysiology. Neuroinformatics 2012: http://www.neuroinformatics2012.org/abstracts/cloud-services-and-a-data-api-for-electrophysiology.
- Traxler, M. J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of psycholinguistics. London: Academic.Google Scholar