Setting up for failure: automatic discovery of the neural mechanisms of cognitive errors
Puria Radmard, Paul M. Bays, M\'at\'e Lengyel

TL;DR
This paper introduces an automated method for discovering neural mechanisms underlying cognitive errors by training RNNs to reproduce complex behavioral data, including errors, using innovative generative and diffusion models.
Contribution
It presents a novel approach that automates RNN mechanism discovery by training on rich behavioral data, surpassing traditional heuristic methods.
Findings
RNNs accurately reproduced macaque neural data in a visual working memory task.
The approach predicted mechanisms underlying swap errors in cognition.
Traditional methods failed to capture the full behavioral response distributions.
Abstract
Discovering the neural mechanisms underpinning cognition is one of the grand challenges of neuroscience. However, previous approaches for building models of RNN dynamics that explain behaviour required iterative refinement of architectures and/or optimisation objectives, resulting in a piecemeal, and mostly heuristic, human-in-the-loop process. Here, we offer an alternative approach that automates the discovery of viable RNN mechanisms by explicitly training RNNs to reproduce behaviour, including the same characteristic errors and suboptimalities, that humans and animals produce in a cognitive task. Achieving this required two main innovations. First, as the amount of behavioural data that can be collected in experiments is often too limited to train RNNs, we use a non-parametric generative model of behavioural responses to produce surrogate data for training RNNs. Second, to capture…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
- Training biologically plausible dynamical systems models using deep neural networks has been saturated for a while with task-optimized neural networks. The proposed approach in this paper to automate the process of generating ecologically valid synthetic behavioral data and a new paradigm to train RNNs on the above generated data with denoising diffusion is clearly a fresh take that is well distinguished from task-optimized network training. - While the proposed method is shown to model behavi
- While task-optimized networks are notoriously difficult to design and train, they provide a direct way to compute representational similarity relative to biological brains on naturalistic stimuli (images, videos, audio, etc). The proposed methods here, however, train RNNs that operate at a different level of abstraction of the input if I understand correctly. This is expected, as the proposed model is one of biological decision making and not necessarily perception. But if one were to apply th
Behavior is often probabilistic, and not necessarily unimodal. Most models add some noise on top of a deterministic backbone. Using flexible distributions directly is an important contribution.
Despite the introduction, there is no fit to actual behavioral data. Is there any guarantee that this can work? Clarity: There are several places where the writing is not clear. For instance, the paper jumps between index and feature based codes, without explaining the rationale. The basic premise in line 41: RNNs are not the only option for testable hypotheses. They are a specific example of a latent variable model. Line 110 – biologically plausible is a broad and ill-defined term. Some p
1. The research problem itself is interesting and promising, i.e. discovering neural mechanisms of cognitive errors. However, it is doubted whether such simulated errors by RNNs can be really called 'neural mechanisms' of human cognitive errors, since the mechanisms were revealed in RNNs rather than human neural activities. 2. The background section makes it easier for the reader to understand the context. 3. The proposed model was evaluated in a working memory task dataset and showed meaning
1. Most evaluations are qualitative results, rather than quantitative results. Although the discovered signatures are promising, the lack of quantitative measurements significantly reduces the rigor of this work. 2. Only one task (working memory) is used for evaluation. Although I agree that this is a representative task, the small task domin limits the generalization ability of this proposed model and it is not convincing that it can be effective in other cognitive task domains. 3. Limited ba
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsEmbodied and Extended Cognition · Functional Brain Connectivity Studies · Neural dynamics and brain function
