Talk:Dehaene–Changeux model

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Neuroscience Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Computer science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}} Philosophy: Epistemology / Mind Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Philosophy of mind Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Systems Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

The article should be cleaned to conform to our style guidelines (especially the excessive use of boldface in the sources and references). --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

references and proofs. Saying the model is a neural network and that as such it can't be a Multi Agent Syetem or a Swarm is like saying it is a parallelogram and thus cannot be a square. The DCM is a neural network which is also a MAS and a Swarm, just like a square is also a rhombus. Here are other references about neural networks that are MAS:

• Roya Asadi, Norwati Mustapha, Nasir Sulaiman, A Framework For Intelligent Multi Agent System Based Neural Network Classification Model (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2009 [1]
• Ying Xu; Mural, R.J.; Einstein, J.R.; Shah, M.B.; Uberbacher, E.C.; GRAIL: a multi-agent neural network system for gene identification Proceedings of the IEEE Oct 1996 84 Issue:10 1544 - 1552 [2]
• Yong S. Choi, Suk I. Yoo , Multi-agent learning approach to WWW information retrieval using neural network IUI '99 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces p23 - 30 [3]
• Minar, N., R. Burkhart, C. Langton, and M. Askenazi. 1996. The Swarm simulation system: A toolkit for building multi-agent simulations. Working Paper 96-06-042, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe.
• K.G. Jolly K.P. Ravindran, R. Vijayakumar, R. Sreerama Kumar, Intelligent decision making in multi-agent robot soccer system through compounded artificial neural networksRobotics and Autonomous Systems Volume 55, Issue 7, 31 July 2007, Pages 589-596 [4]

Besides, the brain at large is a multi-agent system and a swarm of neurons and glial cells... Cheers :--GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to have a MAS containing one or more agents which are neural networks; but individual neurons are not agents. Nor do individual neurons meet the definition of

Wisconsin card sort model as well as for other work. If those different models are fundamentally the same, the article should justify its title by explaining why. At present the article appears to conflate unrelated ideas, and it could do with attention from an expert. -- 202.124.72.1 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• that is your claim. Individual neurons are agents. I shall not argue anymore. Your personal claim is not enough to refute the collective work of this article. Either refute it properly, or forget it. Cheers --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your arguments might be stronger, GrandPhilliesFan, if your method of communicating them were not. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the onus is on editors adding material to the article to back up claims (without
  WP:SYNTH, i.e. with sources that explicitly support the claim in question). Intelligent agents are my area of expertise, and nobody in the field refers to individual neurons as agents. Nor do the Wikipedia articles on MAS and swarms have individual neurons as examples. -- 202.124.75.29 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am not sure I understand the topic well enough to do structural edits but that sure looks redundant Elinruby (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Category:Mind[reply]

So... somebody had to say it. It needs to address itself to people who do not have a Ph.D in pertinent subjects. I do realize that it's still a very new work in progress though.

Meanwhile, the English is a bit strange so I am trying to address that part of the article's readability issues. Since these really are deep waters I will raise these issues in separate sections in case I'm the one missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 07:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a critical role[clarification needed] played by the interaction between von Economo's areas."

what is that role? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 07:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Google does not seem to have ever heard of "surcritical" either. Please define.

2a) "The DCM exhibits several... behaviors such as multistability and a Hopf bifurcation between two very different regimes (ok so far) which may represent either sleep or arousal (the two regimes represent this? If so put commas after "regimes" and "arousal")...

2b) "with a various all-or-none behaviors which Dehaene et al. use to determine a testable taxonomy between different states of consciousness." -- cannot tell from sentence structure if the all-or-none behaviors are used to represent sleep vs arousal or some other categories of "different states of consciousness."

2c) Also, how do you test a taxonomy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 07:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

swarm behavior of brain? I think you are talking about something like this: http://wiredset.com/2011/01/09/digital-swarm-behavior/

but this is really not something your reader should have to guess about.Elinruby (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to wait until the article is accepted to make such improvements, but thanks for having underlined them--GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article contains an entire section consisting of

The PLOS paper from which the diagram was taken does not claim the model is a MAS or a swarm. -- 202.124.73.2 (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also confirms that this model is different from the other models by the same authors ("In previous neuronal modeling studies and computer simulations, we illustrated the possible contribution of spontaneous activity to tasks that involve a random search, such as the learning of a temporal sequence, the search for and selection of the correct rule in the delayed response and Wisconsin card-sorting tests, or the discovery of a multistep solution in the Tower of London test.") This article erroneously conflates this previous work with the model described by the figure. -- 202.124.73.2 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]