Author: MIT News

A bionic knee integrated into tissue can restore natural movement

Anne Trafton |

MIT researchers have developed a new bionic knee that can help people with above-the-knee amputations walk faster, climb stairs, and avoid obstacles more easily than they could with a traditional prosthesis.

Unlike prostheses in which the residual limb sits within a socket, the new system is directly integrated with the user’s muscle and bone tissue. This enables greater stability and gives the user much more control over the movement of the prosthesis.

Participants in a small clinical study also reported that the limb felt more like a part of their own body, compared to people who had more traditional above-the-knee amputations.

A subject with the osseointegrated mechanoneural prosthesis overcomes an obstacle placed in their walking path by volitionally flexing and extending their phantom knee joint.

“A prosthesis that’s tissue-integrated — anchored to the bone and directly controlled by the nervous system — is not merely a lifeless, separate device, but rather a system that is carefully integrated into human physiology, offering a greater level of prosthetic embodiment. It’s not simply a tool that the human employs, but rather an integral part of self,” says Hugh Herr, a professor of media arts and sciences, co-director of the K. Lisa Yang Center for Bionics at MIT, an associate member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the new study.

Tony Shu PhD ’24 is the lead author of the paper, which appears today in Science.

Better control

Over the past several years, Herr’s lab has been working on new prostheses that can extract neural information from muscles left behind after an amputation and use that information to help guide a prosthetic limb.

During a traditional amputation, pairs of muscles that take turns stretching and contracting are usually severed, disrupting the normal agonist-antagonist relationship of the muscles. This disruption makes it very difficult for the nervous system to sense the position of a muscle and how fast it’s contracting.

Using the new surgical approach developed by Herr and his colleagues, known as agonist-antagonist myoneuronal interface (AMI), muscle pairs are reconnected during surgery so that they still dynamically communicate with each other within the residual limb. This sensory feedback helps the wearer of the prosthesis to decide how to move the limb, and also generates electrical signals that can be used to control the prosthetic limb.

 

 

In a 2024 study, the researchers showed that people with amputations below the knee who received the AMI surgery were able to walk faster and navigate around obstacles much more naturally than people with traditional below-the-knee amputations.

In the new study, the researchers extended the approach to better serve people with amputations above the knee. They wanted to create a system that could not only read out signals from the muscles using AMI but also be integrated into the bone, offering more stability and better sensory feedback.

To achieve that, the researchers developed a procedure to insert a titanium rod into the residual femur bone at the amputation site. This implant allows for better mechanical control and load bearing than a traditional prosthesis. Additionally, the implant contains 16 wires that collect information from electrodes located on the AMI muscles inside the body, which enables more accurate transduction of the signals coming from the muscles.

This bone-integrated system, known as e-OPRA, transmits AMI signals to a new robotic controller developed specifically for this study. The controller uses this information to calculate the torque necessary to move the prosthesis the way that the user wants it to move.

The new bionic knee can help people with above-the-knee amputations walk faster, climb stairs, and avoid obstacles more easily than they could with a traditional prosthesis. The new system is directly integrated with the user’s muscle and bone tissue (bottom row right). This enables greater stability and gives the user much more control over the movement of the prosthesis. Image courtesy of the researchers

“All parts work together to better get information into and out of the body and better interface mechanically with the device,” Shu says. “We’re directly loading the skeleton, which is the part of the body that’s supposed to be loaded, as opposed to using sockets, which is uncomfortable and can lead to frequent skin infections.”

In this study, two subjects received the combined AMI and e-OPRA system, known as an osseointegrated mechanoneural prosthesis (OMP). These users were compared with eight who had the AMI surgery but not the e-OPRA implant, and seven users who had neither AMI nor e-OPRA. All subjects took a turn at using an experimental powered knee prosthesis developed by the lab.

The researchers measured the participants’ ability to perform several types of tasks, including bending the knee to a specified angle, climbing stairs, and stepping over obstacles. In most of these tasks, users with the OMP system performed better than the subjects who had the AMI surgery but not the e-OPRA implant, and much better than users of traditional prostheses.

“This paper represents the fulfillment of a vision that the scientific community has had for a long time — the implementation and demonstration of a fully physiologically integrated, volitionally controlled robotic leg,” says Michael Goldfarb, a professor of mechanical engineering and director of the Center for Intelligent Mechatronics at Vanderbilt University, who was not involved in the research. “This is really difficult work, and the authors deserve tremendous credit for their efforts in realizing such a challenging goal.”

A sense of embodiment

In addition to testing gait and other movements, the researchers also asked questions designed to evaluate participants’ sense of embodiment — that is, to what extent their prosthetic limb felt like a part of their own body.

Questions included whether the patients felt as if they had two legs, if they felt as if the prosthesis was part of their body, and if they felt in control of the prosthesis. Each question was designed to evaluate the participants’ feelings of agency, ownership of device, and body representation.

The researchers found that as the study went on, the two participants with the OMP showed much greater increases in their feelings of agency and ownership than the other subjects.

“Another reason this paper is significant is that it looks into these embodiment questions and it shows large improvements in that sensation of embodiment,” Herr says. “No matter how sophisticated you make the AI systems of a robotic prosthesis, it’s still going to feel like a tool to the user, like an external device. But with this tissue-integrated approach, when you ask the human user what is their body, the more it’s integrated, the more they’re going to say the prosthesis is actually part of self.”

The AMI procedure is now done routinely on patients with below-the-knee amputations at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Herr expects it will soon become the standard for above-the-knee amputations as well. The combined OMP system will need larger clinical trials to receive FDA approval for commercial use, which Herr expects may take about five years.

The research was funded by the Yang Tan Collective and DARPA.

Researchers present bold ideas for AI at MIT Generative AI Impact Consortium kickoff event

by Amanda Diehl | MIT Schwarzman College of Computing |

Launched in February of this year, the MIT Generative AI Impact Consortium (MGAIC), a presidential initiative led by MIT’s Office of Innovation and Strategy and administered by the MIT Stephen A. Schwarzman College of Computing, issued a call for proposals, inviting researchers from across MIT to submit ideas for innovative projects studying high-impact uses of generative AI models.

The call received 180 submissions from nearly 250 faculty members, spanning all of MIT’s five schools and the college. The overwhelming response across the Institute exemplifies the growing interest in AI and follows in the wake of MIT’s Generative AI Week and call for impact papers. Fifty-five proposals were selected for MGAIC’s inaugural seed grants, with several more selected to be funded by the consortium’s founding company members.

Over 30 funding recipients presented their proposals to the greater MIT community at a kickoff event on May 13. Anantha P. Chandrakasan, chief innovation and strategy officer and dean of the School of Engineering who is head of the consortium, welcomed the attendees and thanked the consortium’s founding industry members.

“The amazing response to our call for proposals is an incredible testament to the energy and creativity that MGAIC has sparked at MIT. We are especially grateful to our founding members, whose support and vision helped bring this endeavor to life,” adds Chandrakasan. “One of the things that has been most remarkable about MGAIC is that this is a truly cross-Institute initiative. Deans from all five schools and the college collaborated in shaping and implementing it.”

Vivek F. Farias, the Patrick J. McGovern (1959) Professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and co-faculty director of the consortium with Tim Kraska, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science in the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), emceed the afternoon of five-minute lightning presentations.

Presentation highlights include:

“AI-Driven Tutors and Open Datasets for Early Literacy Education,” presented by Ola Ozernov-Palchik, a research scientist at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, proposed a refinement for AI-tutors for pK-7 students to potentially decrease literacy disparities.

“Developing jam_bots: Real-Time Collaborative Agents for Live Human-AI Musical Improvisation,” presented by Anna Huang, assistant professor of music and assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science, and Joe Paradiso, the Alexander W. Dreyfoos (1954) Professor in Media Arts and Sciences at the MIT Media Lab, aims to enhance human-AI musical collaboration in real-time for live concert improvisation.

“GENIUS: GENerative Intelligence for Urban Sustainability,” presented by Norhan Bayomi, a postdoc at the MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative and a research assistant in the Urban Metabolism Group, which aims to address the critical gap of a standardized approach in evaluating and benchmarking cities’ climate policies.

Georgia Perakis, the John C Head III Dean (Interim) of the MIT Sloan School of Management and professor of operations management, operations research, and statistics, who serves as co-chair of the GenAI Dean’s oversight group with Dan Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, ended the event with closing remarks that emphasized “the readiness and eagerness of our community to lead in this space.”

“This is only the beginning,” he continued. “We are at the front edge of a historic moment — one where MIT has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to shape the future of generative AI with purpose, with excellence, and with care.”

How the brain solves complicated problems

Anne Trafton |

The human brain is very good at solving complicated problems. One reason for that is that humans can break problems apart into manageable subtasks that are easy to solve one at a time.

This allows us to complete a daily task like going out for coffee by breaking it into steps: getting out of our office building, navigating to the coffee shop, and once there, obtaining the coffee. This strategy helps us to handle obstacles easily. For example, if the elevator is broken, we can revise how we get out of the building without changing the other steps.

While there is a great deal of behavioral evidence demonstrating humans’ skill at these complicated tasks, it has been difficult to devise experimental scenarios that allow precise characterization of the computational strategies we use to solve problems.

In a new study, MIT researchers have successfully modeled how people deploy different decision-making strategies to solve a complicated task — in this case, predicting how a ball will travel through a maze when the ball is hidden from view. The human brain cannot perform this task perfectly because it is impossible to track all of the possible trajectories in parallel, but the researchers found that people can perform reasonably well by flexibly adopting two strategies known as hierarchical reasoning and counterfactual reasoning.

The researchers were also able to determine the circumstances under which people choose each of those strategies.

“What humans are capable of doing is to break down the maze into subsections, and then solve each step using relatively simple algorithms. Effectively, when we don’t have the means to solve a complex problem, we manage by using simpler heuristics that get the job done,” says Mehrdad Jazayeri, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the senior author of the study.

Mahdi Ramadan PhD ’24 and graduate student Cheng Tang are the lead authors of the paper, which appears today in Nature Human Behavior. Nicholas Watters PhD ’25 is also a co-author.

Rational strategies

When humans perform simple tasks that have a clear correct answer, such as categorizing objects, they perform extremely well. When tasks become more complex, such as planning a trip to your favorite cafe, there may no longer be one clearly superior answer. And, at each step, there are many things that could go wrong. In these cases, humans are very good at working out a solution that will get the task done, even though it may not be the optimal solution.

Those solutions often involve problem-solving shortcuts, or heuristics. Two prominent heuristics humans commonly rely on are hierarchical and counterfactual reasoning. Hierarchical reasoning is the process of breaking down a problem into layers, starting from the general and proceeding toward specifics. Counterfactual reasoning involves imagining what would have happened if you had made a different choice. While these strategies are well-known, scientists don’t know much about how the brain decides which one to use in a given situation.

“This is really a big question in cognitive science: How do we problem-solve in a suboptimal way, by coming up with clever heuristics that we chain together in a way that ends up getting us closer and closer until we solve the problem?” Jazayeri says.

To overcome this, Jazayeri and his colleagues devised a task that is just complex enough to require these strategies, yet simple enough that the outcomes and the calculations that go into them can be measured.

The task requires participants to predict the path of a ball as it moves through four possible trajectories in a maze. Once the ball enters the maze, people cannot see which path it travels. At two junctions in the maze, they hear an auditory cue when the ball reaches that point. Predicting the ball’s path is a task that is impossible for humans to solve with perfect accuracy.

“It requires four parallel simulations in your mind, and no human can do that. It’s analogous to having four conversations at a time,” Jazayeri says. “The task allows us to tap into this set of algorithms that the humans use, because you just can’t solve it optimally.”

The researchers recruited about 150 human volunteers to participate in the study. Before each subject began the ball-tracking task, the researchers evaluated how accurately they could estimate timespans of several hundred milliseconds, about the length of time it takes the ball to travel along one arm of the maze.

For each participant, the researchers created computational models that could predict the patterns of errors that would be seen for that participant (based on their timing skill) if they were running parallel simulations, using hierarchical reasoning alone, counterfactual reasoning alone, or combinations of the two reasoning strategies.

The researchers compared the subjects’ performance with the models’ predictions and found that for every subject, their performance was most closely associated with a model that used hierarchical reasoning but sometimes switched to counterfactual reasoning.

That suggests that instead of tracking all the possible paths that the ball could take, people broke up the task. First, they picked the direction (left or right), in which they thought the ball turned at the first junction, and continued to track the ball as it headed for the next turn. If the timing of the next sound they heard wasn’t compatible with the path they had chosen, they would go back and revise their first prediction — but only some of the time.

Switching back to the other side, which represents a shift to counterfactual reasoning, requires people to review their memory of the tones that they heard. However, it turns out that these memories are not always reliable, and the researchers found that people decided whether to go back or not based on how good they believed their memory to be.

“People rely on counterfactuals to the degree that it’s helpful,” Jazayeri says. “People who take a big performance loss when they do counterfactuals avoid doing them. But if you are someone who’s really good at retrieving information from the recent past, you may go back to the other side.”

Human limitations

To further validate their results, the researchers created a machine-learning neural network and trained it to complete the task. A machine-learning model trained on this task will track the ball’s path accurately and make the correct prediction every time, unless the researchers impose limitations on its performance.

When the researchers added cognitive limitations similar to those faced by humans, they found that the model altered its strategies. When they eliminated the model’s ability to follow all possible trajectories, it began to employ hierarchical and counterfactual strategies like humans do. If the researchers reduced the model’s memory recall ability, it began to switch to hierarchical only if it thought its recall would be good enough to get the right answer — just as humans do.

“What we found is that networks mimic human behavior when we impose on them those computational constraints that we found in human behavior,” Jazayeri says. “This is really saying that humans are acting rationally under the constraints that they have to function under.”

By slightly varying the amount of memory impairment programmed into the models, the researchers also saw hints that the switching of strategies appears to happen gradually, rather than at a distinct cut-off point. They are now performing further studies to try to determine what is happening in the brain as these shifts in strategy occur.

The research was funded by a Lisa K. Yang ICoN Fellowship, a Friends of the McGovern Institute Student Fellowship, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, the Simons Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the McGovern Institute.

How the brain distinguishes between ambiguous hypotheses

Anne Trafton |

When navigating a place that we’re only somewhat familiar with, we often rely on unique landmarks to help make our way. However, if we’re looking for an office in a brick building, and there are many brick buildings along our route, we might use a rule like looking for the second building on a street, rather than relying on distinguishing the building itself.

Man seated on staircase, smiling at camera
McGovern Investigator Mark Harnett. Photo: Adam Glanzman

Until that ambiguity is resolved, we must hold in mind that there are multiple possibilities (or hypotheses) for where we are in relation to our destination. In a study of mice, MIT neuroscientists have now discovered that these hypotheses are explicitly represented in the brain by distinct neural activity patterns.

This is the first time that neural activity patterns that encode simultaneous hypotheses have been seen in the brain. The researchers found that these representations, which were observed in the brain’s retrosplenial cortex (RSC), not only encode hypotheses but also could be used by the animals to choose the correct way to go.

“As far as we know, no one has shown in a complex reasoning task that there’s an area in association cortex that holds two hypotheses in mind and then uses one of those hypotheses, once it gets more information, to actually complete the task,” says Mark Harnett, an associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the study.

Jakob Voigts PhD ’17, a former postdoc in Harnett’s lab and now a group leader at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Janelia Research Campus, is the lead author of the paper, which appears today in Nature Neuroscience.

Ambiguous landmarks

The RSC receives input from the visual cortex, the hippocampal formation, and the anterior thalamus, which it integrates to help guide navigation.

In a 2020 paper, Harnett’s lab found that the RSC uses both visual and spatial information to encode landmarks used for navigation. In that study, the researchers showed that neurons in the RSC of mice integrate visual information about the surrounding environment with spatial feedback of the mice’s own position along a track, allowing them to learn where to find a reward based on landmarks that they saw.

In their new study, the researchers wanted to delve further into how the RSC uses spatial information and situational context to guide navigational decision-making. To do that, the researchers devised a much more complicated navigational task than typically used in mouse studies. They set up a large, round arena, with 16 small openings, or ports, along the side walls. One of these openings would give the mice a reward when they stuck their nose through it. In the first set of experiments, the researchers trained the mice to go to different reward ports indicated by dots of light on the floor that were only visible when the mice get close to them.

Man in blue shirt wearing glasses building a platform in a lab setting.
Jakob Voigts PhD ’17, at work in Mark Harnett’s lab. Photo: Justin Knight

Once the mice learned to perform this relatively simple task, the researchers added a second dot. The two dots were always the same distance from each other and from the center of the arena. But now the mice had to go to the port by the counterclockwise dot to get the reward. Because the dots were identical and only became visible at close distances, the mice could never see both dots at once and could not immediately determine which dot was which.

To solve this task, mice therefore had to remember where they expected a dot to show up, integrating their own body position, the direction they were heading, and path they took to figure out which landmark is which. By measuring RSC activity as the mice approached the ambiguous landmarks, the researchers could determine whether the RSC encodes hypotheses about spatial location. The task was carefully designed to require the mice to use the visual landmarks to obtain rewards, instead of other strategies like odor cues or dead reckoning.

“What is important about the behavior in this case is that mice need to remember something and then use that to interpret future input,” says Voigts, who worked on this study while a postdoc in Harnett’s lab.

“It’s not just remembering something, but remembering it in such a way that you can act on it.” – Jakob Voigts

The researchers found that as the mice accumulated information about which dot might be which, populations of RSC neurons displayed distinct activity patterns for incomplete information. Each of these patterns appears to correspond to a hypothesis about where the mouse thought it was with respect to the reward.

When the mice get close enough to figure out which dot was indicating the reward port, these patterns collapsed into the one that represents the correct hypothesis. The findings suggest that these patterns not only passively store hypotheses, they can also be used to compute how to get to the correct location, the researchers say.

“We show that RSC has the required information for using this short-term memory to distinguish the ambiguous landmarks. And we show that this type of hypothesis is encoded and processed in a way that allows the RSC to use it to solve the computation,” Voigts says.

Interconnected neurons

When analyzing their initial results, Harnett and Voigts consulted with MIT Professor Ila Fiete, who had run a study about 10 years ago using an artificial neural network to perform a similar navigation task.

That study, previously published on bioRxiv, showed that the neural network displayed activity patterns that were conceptually similar to those seen in the animal studies run by Harnett’s lab. The neurons of the artificial neural network ended up forming highly interconnected low-dimensional networks, like the neurons of the RSC.

“That interconnectivity seems, in ways that we still don’t understand, to be key to how these dynamics emerge and how they’re controlled. And it’s a key feature of how the RSC holds these two hypotheses in mind at the same time,” Harnett says.

In his lab at Janelia, Voigts now plans to investigate how other brain areas involved in navigation, such as the prefrontal cortex, are engaged as mice explore and forage in a more naturalistic way, without being trained on a specific task.

“We’re looking into whether there are general principles by which tasks are learned,” Voigts says. “We have a lot of knowledge in neuroscience about how brains operate once the animal has learned a task, but in comparison we know extremely little about how mice learn tasks or what they choose to learn when given freedom to behave naturally.”

The research was funded, in part, by the National Institutes of Health, a Simons Center for the Social Brain at MIT postdoctoral fellowship, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines at MIT, funded by the National Science Foundation.

A visual pathway in the brain may do more than recognize objects

Anne Trafton |

When visual information enters the brain, it travels through two pathways that process different aspects of the input. For decades, scientists have hypothesized that one of these pathways, the ventral visual stream, is responsible for recognizing objects, and that it might have been optimized by evolution to do just that.

Consistent with this, in the past decade, MIT scientists have found that when computational models of the anatomy of the ventral stream are optimized to solve the task of object recognition, they are remarkably good predictors of the neural activities in the ventral stream.

However, in a new study, MIT researchers have shown that when they train these types of models on spatial tasks instead, the resulting models are also quite good predictors of the ventral stream’s neural activities. This suggests that the ventral stream may not be exclusively optimized for object recognition.

“This leaves wide open the question about what the ventral stream is being optimized for. I think the dominant perspective a lot of people in our field believe is that the ventral stream is optimized for object recognition, but this study provides a new perspective that the ventral stream could be optimized for spatial tasks as well,” says MIT graduate student Yudi Xie.

Xie is the lead author of the study, which will be presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations. Other authors of the paper include Weichen Huang, a visiting student through MIT’s Research Science Institute program; Esther Alter, a software engineer at the MIT Quest for Intelligence; Jeremy Schwartz, a sponsored research technical staff member; Joshua Tenenbaum, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences; and James DiCarlo, the Peter de Florez Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, director of the Quest for Intelligence, and a member of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT.

Beyond object recognition

When we look at an object, our visual system can not only identify the object, but also determine other features such as its location, its distance from us, and its orientation in space. Since the early 1980s, neuroscientists have hypothesized that the primate visual system is divided into two pathways: the ventral stream, which performs object-recognition tasks, and the dorsal stream, which processes features related to spatial location.

Over the past decade, researchers have worked to model the ventral stream using a type of deep-learning model known as a convolutional neural network (CNN). Researchers can train these models to perform object-recognition tasks by feeding them datasets containing thousands of images along with category labels describing the images.

The state-of-the-art versions of these CNNs have high success rates at categorizing images. Additionally, researchers have found that the internal activations of the models are very similar to the activities of neurons that process visual information in the ventral stream. Furthermore, the more similar these models are to the ventral stream, the better they perform at object-recognition tasks. This has led many researchers to hypothesize that the dominant function of the ventral stream is recognizing objects.

However, experimental studies, especially a study from the DiCarlo lab in 2016, have found that the ventral stream appears to encode spatial features as well. These features include the object’s size, its orientation (how much it is rotated), and its location within the field of view. Based on these studies, the MIT team aimed to investigate whether the ventral stream might serve additional functions beyond object recognition.

“Our central question in this project was, is it possible that we can think about the ventral stream as being optimized for doing these spatial tasks instead of just categorization tasks?” Xie says.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers set out to train a CNN to identify one or more spatial features of an object, including rotation, location, and distance. To train the models, they created a new dataset of synthetic images. These images show objects such as tea kettles or calculators superimposed on different backgrounds, in locations and orientations that are labeled to help the model learn them.

The researchers found that CNNs that were trained on just one of these spatial tasks showed a high level of “neuro-alignment” with the ventral stream — very similar to the levels seen in CNN models trained on object recognition.

The researchers measure neuro-alignment using a technique that DiCarlo’s lab has developed, which involves asking the models, once trained, to predict the neural activity that a particular image would generate in the brain. The researchers found that the better the models performed on the spatial task they had been trained on, the more neuro-alignment they showed.

“I think we cannot assume that the ventral stream is just doing object categorization, because many of these other functions, such as spatial tasks, also can lead to this strong correlation between models’ neuro-alignment and their performance,” Xie says. “Our conclusion is that you can optimize either through categorization or doing these spatial tasks, and they both give you a ventral-stream-like model, based on our current metrics to evaluate neuro-alignment.”

Comparing models

The researchers then investigated why these two approaches — training for object recognition and training for spatial features — led to similar degrees of neuro-alignment. To do that, they performed an analysis known as centered kernel alignment (CKA), which allows them to measure the degree of similarity between representations in different CNNs. This analysis showed that in the early to middle layers of the models, the representations that the models learn are nearly indistinguishable.

“In these early layers, essentially you cannot tell these models apart by just looking at their representations,” Xie says. “It seems like they learn some very similar or unified representation in the early to middle layers, and in the later stages they diverge to support different tasks.”

The researchers hypothesize that even when models are trained to analyze just one feature, they also take into account “non-target” features — those that they are not trained on. When objects have greater variability in non-target features, the models tend to learn representations more similar to those learned by models trained on other tasks. This suggests that the models are using all of the information available to them, which may result in different models coming up with similar representations, the researchers say.

“More non-target variability actually helps the model learn a better representation, instead of learning a representation that’s ignorant of them,” Xie says. “It’s possible that the models, although they’re trained on one target, are simultaneously learning other things due to the variability of these non-target features.”

In future work, the researchers hope to develop new ways to compare different models, in hopes of learning more about how each one develops internal representations of objects based on differences in training tasks and training data.

“There could be still slight differences between these models, even though our current way of measuring how similar these models are to the brain tells us they’re on a very similar level. That suggests maybe there’s still some work to be done to improve upon how we can compare the model to the brain, so that we can better understand what exactly the ventral stream is optimized for,” Xie says.

The research was funded by the Semiconductor Research Corporation and the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Looking under the hood at the brain’s language system

Anne Trafton |

As a young girl growing up in the former Soviet Union, Evelina Fedorenko PhD ’07 studied several languages, including English, as her mother hoped that it would give her the chance to eventually move abroad for better opportunities.

Her language studies not only helped her establish a new life in the United States as an adult, but also led to a lifelong interest in linguistics and how the brain processes language. Now an associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT, Fedorenko studies the brain’s language-processing regions: how they arise, whether they are shared with other mental functions, and how each region contributes to language comprehension and production.

Fedorenko’s early work helped to identify the precise locations of the brain’s language-processing regions, and she has been building on that work to generate insight into how different neuronal populations in those regions implement linguistic computations.

“It took a while to develop the approach and figure out how to quickly and reliably find these regions in individual brains, given this standard problem of the brain being a little different across people,” she says. “Then we just kept going, asking questions like: Does language overlap with other functions that are similar to it? How is the system organized internally? Do different parts of this network do different things? There are dozens and dozens of questions you can ask, and many directions that we have pushed on.”

Among some of the more recent directions, she is exploring how the brain’s language-processing regions develop early in life, through studies of very young children, people with unusual brain architecture, and computational models known as large language models.

From Russia to MIT

Fedorenko grew up in the Russian city of Volgograd, which was then part of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, her mother, a mechanical engineer, lost her job, and the family struggled to make ends meet.

“It was a really intense and painful time,” Fedorenko recalls. “But one thing that was always very stable for me is that I always had a lot of love, from my parents, my grandparents, and my aunt and uncle. That was really important and gave me the confidence that if I worked hard and had a goal, that I could achieve whatever I dreamed about.”

Fedorenko did work hard in school, studying English, French, German, Polish, and Spanish, and she also participated in math competitions. As a 15-year-old, she spent a year attending high school in Alabama, as part of a program that placed students from the former Soviet Union with American families. She had been thinking about applying to universities in Europe but changed her plans when she realized the American higher education system offered more academic flexibility.

After being admitted to Harvard University with a full scholarship, she returned to the United States in 1998 and earned her bachelor’s degree in psychology and linguistics, while also working multiple jobs to send money home to help her family.

While at Harvard, she also took classes at MIT and ended up deciding to apply to the Institute for graduate school. For her PhD research at MIT, she worked with Ted Gibson, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences, and later, Nancy Kanwisher, the Walter A. Rosenblith Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience. She began by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study brain regions that appeared to respond preferentially to music, but she soon switched to studying brain responses to language.

She found that working with Kanwisher, who studies the functional organization of the human brain but hadn’t worked much on language before, helped Fedorenko to build a research program free of potential biases baked into some of the early work on language processing in the brain.

“We really kind of started from scratch,” Fedorenko says, “combining the knowledge of language processing I have gained by working with Gibson and the rigorous neuroscience approaches that Kanwisher had developed when studying the visual system.”

After finishing her PhD in 2007, Fedorenko stayed at MIT for a few years as a postdoc funded by the National Institutes of Health, continuing her research with Kanwisher. During that time, she and Kanwisher developed techniques to identify language-processing regions in different people, and discovered new evidence that certain parts of the brain respond selectively to language. Fedorenko then spent five years as a research faculty member at Massachusetts General Hospital, before receiving an offer to join the faculty at MIT in 2019.

How the brain processes language

Since starting her lab at MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Fedorenko and her trainees have made several discoveries that have helped to refine neuroscientists’ understanding of the brain’s language-processing regions, which are spread across the left frontal and temporal lobes of the brain.

In a series of studies, her lab showed that these regions are highly selective for language and are not engaged by activities such as listening to music, reading computer code, or interpreting facial expressions, all of which have been argued to be share similarities with language processing.

“We’ve separated the language-processing machinery from various other systems, including the system for general fluid thinking, and the systems for social perception and reasoning, which support the processing of communicative signals, like facial expressions and gestures, and reasoning about others’ beliefs and desires,” Fedorenko says. “So that was a significant finding, that this system really is its own thing.”

More recently, Fedorenko has turned her attention to figuring out, in more detail, the functions of different parts of the language processing network. In one recent study, she identified distinct neuronal populations within these regions that appear to have different temporal windows for processing linguistic content, ranging from just one word up to six words.

She is also studying how language-processing circuits arise in the brain, with ongoing studies in which she and a postdoc in her lab are using fMRI to scan the brains of young children, observing how their language regions behave even before the children have fully learned to speak and understand language.

Large language models (similar to ChatGPT) can help with these types of developmental questions, as the researchers can better control the language inputs to the model and have continuous access to its abilities and representations at different stages of learning.

“You can train models in different ways, on different kinds of language, in different kind of regimens. For example, training on simpler language first and then more complex language, or on language combined with some visual inputs. Then you can look at the performance of these language models on different tasks, and also examine changes in their internal representations across the training trajectory, to test which model best captures the trajectory of human language learning,” Fedorenko says.

To gain another window into how the brain develops language ability, Fedorenko launched the Interesting Brains Project several years ago. Through this project, she is studying people who experienced some type of brain damage early in life, such as a prenatal stroke, or brain deformation as a result of a congenital cyst. In some of these individuals, their conditions destroyed or significantly deformed the brain’s typical language-processing areas, but all of these individuals are cognitively indistinguishable from individuals with typical brains: They still learned to speak and understand language normally, and in some cases, they didn’t even realize that their brains were in some way atypical until they were adults.

“That study is all about plasticity and redundancy in the brain, trying to figure out what brains can cope with, and how” Fedorenko says. “Are there many solutions to build a human mind, even when the neural infrastructure is so different-looking?”

How one brain circuit encodes memories of both places and events

Anne Trafton |

Nearly 50 years ago, neuroscientists discovered cells within the brain’s hippocampus that store memories of specific locations. These cells also play an important role in storing memories of events, known as episodic memories. While the mechanism of how place cells encode spatial memory has been well-characterized, it has remained a puzzle how they encode episodic memories.

A new model developed by MIT researchers explains how those place cells can be recruited to form episodic memories, even when there’s no spatial component. According to this model, place cells, along with grid cells found in the entorhinal cortex, act as a scaffold that can be used to anchor memories as a linked series.

“This model is a first-draft model of the entorhinal-hippocampal episodic memory circuit. It’s a foundation to build on to understand the nature of episodic memory. That’s the thing I’m really excited about,” says Ila Fiete, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the new study.

The model accurately replicates several features of biological memory systems, including the large storage capacity, gradual degradation of older memories, and the ability of people who compete in memory competitions to store enormous amounts of information in “memory palaces.”

MIT Research Scientist Sarthak Chandra and Sugandha Sharma PhD ’24 are the lead authors of the study, which appears today in Nature. Rishidev Chaudhuri, an assistant professor at the University of California at Davis, is also an author of the paper.

An index of memories

To encode spatial memory, place cells in the hippocampus work closely with grid cells — a special type of neuron that fires at many different locations, arranged geometrically in a regular pattern of repeating triangles. Together, a population of grid cells forms a lattice of triangles representing a physical space.

In addition to helping us recall places where we’ve been, these hippocampal-entorhinal circuits also help us navigate new locations. From human patients, it’s known that these circuits are also critical for forming episodic memories, which might have a spatial component but mainly consist of events, such as how you celebrated your last birthday or what you had for lunch yesterday.

“The same hippocampal and entorhinal circuits are used not just for spatial memory, but also for general episodic memory,” says Fiete, who is also the director of the K. Lisa Yang ICoN Center at MIT. “The question you can ask is what is the connection between spatial and episodic memory that makes them live in the same circuit?”

Two hypotheses have been proposed to account for this overlap in function. One is that the circuit is specialized to store spatial memories because those types of memories — remembering where food was located or where predators were seen — are important to survival. Under this hypothesis, this circuit encodes episodic memories as a byproduct of spatial memory.

An alternative hypothesis suggests that the circuit is specialized to store episodic memories, but also encodes spatial memory because location is one aspect of many episodic memories.

In this work, Fiete and her colleagues proposed a third option: that the peculiar tiling structure of grid cells and their interactions with hippocampus are equally important for both types of memory — episodic and spatial. To develop their new model, they built on computational models that her lab has been developing over the past decade, which mimic how grid cells encode spatial information.

“We reached the point where I felt like we understood on some level the mechanisms of the grid cell circuit, so it felt like the time to try to understand the interactions between the grid cells and the larger circuit that includes the hippocampus,” Fiete says.

In the new model, the researchers hypothesized that grid cells interacting with hippocampal cells can act as a scaffold for storing either spatial or episodic memory. Each activation pattern within the grid defines a “well,” and these wells are spaced out at regular intervals. The wells don’t store the content of a specific memory, but each one acts as a pointer to a specific memory, which is stored in the synapses between the hippocampus and the sensory cortex.

When the memory is triggered later from fragmentary pieces, grid and hippocampal cell interactions drive the circuit state into the nearest well, and the state at the bottom of the well connects to the appropriate part of the sensory cortex to fill in the details of the memory. The sensory cortex is much larger than the hippocampus and can store vast amounts of memory.

“Conceptually, we can think about the hippocampus as a pointer network. It’s like an index that can be pattern-completed from a partial input, and that index then points toward sensory cortex, where those inputs were experienced in the first place,” Fiete says. “The scaffold doesn’t contain the content, it only contains this index of abstract scaffold states.”

Furthermore, events that occur in sequence can be linked together: Each well in the grid cell-hippocampal network efficiently stores the information that is needed to activate the next well, allowing memories to be recalled in the right order.

Modeling memory cliffs and palaces

The researchers’ new model replicates several memory-related phenomena much more accurately than existing models that are based on Hopfield networks — a type of neural network that can store and recall patterns.

While Hopfield networks offer insight into how memories can be formed by strengthening connections between neurons, they don’t perfectly model how biological memory works. In Hopfield models, every memory is recalled in perfect detail until capacity is reached. At that point, no new memories can form, and worse, attempting to add more memories erases all prior ones. This “memory cliff” doesn’t accurately mimic what happens in the biological brain, which tends to gradually forget the details of older memories while new ones are continually added.

The new MIT model captures findings from decades of recordings of grid and hippocampal cells in rodents made as the animals explore and forage in various environments. It also helps to explain the underlying mechanisms for a memorization strategy known as a memory palace. One of the tasks in memory competitions is to memorize the shuffled sequence of cards in one or several card decks. They usually do this by assigning each card to a particular spot in a memory palace — a memory of a childhood home or other environment they know well. When they need to recall the cards, they mentally stroll through the house, visualizing each card in its spot as they go along. Counterintuitively, adding the memory burden of associating cards with locations makes recall stronger and more reliable.

The MIT team’s computational model was able to perform such tasks very well, suggesting that memory palaces take advantage of the memory circuit’s own strategy of associating inputs with a scaffold in the hippocampus, but one level down: Long-acquired memories reconstructed in the larger sensory cortex can now be pressed into service as a scaffold for new memories. This allows for the storage and recall of many more items in a sequence than would otherwise be possible.

The researchers now plan to build on their model to explore how episodic memories could become converted to cortical “semantic” memory, or the memory of facts dissociated from the specific context in which they were acquired (for example, Paris is the capital of France), how episodes are defined, and how brain-like memory models could be integrated into modern machine learning.

The research was funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation under the Robust Intelligence program, the ARO-MURI award, the Simons Foundation, and the K. Lisa Yang ICoN Center.

Feng Zhang awarded 2024 National Medal of Technology

by Julie Pryor |

This post is adapted from an MIT News story.

***

Feng Zhang, the James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience at MIT and an Investigator at the McGovern Institute, has won the National Medal of Technology and Innovation, the nation’s highest recognition for scientists and engineers. The prestigious award recognizes “American innovators whose vision, intellect, creativity, and determination have strengthened America’s economy and improved our quality of life.”

Zhang, who is also a professor of brain and cognitive sciences and biological engineering at MIT, a core member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, was recognized for his work developing molecular tools, including the CRISPR genome-editing system, that have accelerated biomedical research and led to the first FDA-approved gene editing therapy.

This year, the White House awarded the National Medal of Science to 14 recipients and named nine individual awardees of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation, along with two organizations. Zhang is among four MIT faculty members who were awarded the nation’s highest honors for exemplary achievement and leadership in science and technology.

Designing molecular tools

Zhang, who earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard University in 2004, has contributed to the development of multiple molecular tools to accelerate the understanding of human disease. While a graduate student at Stanford University, from which he received his PhD in 2009, Zhang worked in the lab of Professor Karl Deisseroth. There, he worked on a protein called channelrhodopsin, which he and Deisseroth believed held potential for engineering mammalian cells to respond to light.

The resulting technique, known as optogenetics, is now used widely used in neuroscience and other fields. By engineering neurons to express light-sensitive proteins such as channelrhodopsin, researchers can either stimulate or silence the cells’ electrical impulses by shining different wavelengths of light on them. This has allowed for detailed study of the roles of specific populations of neurons in the brain, and the mapping of neural circuits that control a variety of behaviors.

In 2011, about a month after joining the MIT faculty, Zhang attended a talk by Harvard Medical School Professor Michael Gilmore, who studies the pathogenic bacterium Enteroccocus. The scientist mentioned that these bacteria protect themselves from viruses with DNA-cutting enzymes known as nucleases, which are part of a defense system known as CRISPR.

“I had no idea what CRISPR was, but I was interested in nucleases,” Zhang told MIT News in 2016. “I went to look up CRISPR, and that’s when I realized you might be able to engineer it for use for genome editing.”

In January 2013, Zhang and members of his lab reported that they had successfully used CRISPR to edit genes in mammalian cells. The CRISPR system includes a nuclease called Cas9, which can be directed to cut a specific genetic target by RNA molecules known as guide strands.

Since then, scientists in fields from medicine to plant biology have used CRISPR to study gene function and modify faulty genes that cause disease. More recently, Zhang’s lab has devised many enhancements to the original CRISPR system, such as making the targeting more precise and preventing unintended cuts in the wrong locations. In 2023, the FDA approved Casgevy, a CRISPR gene therapy based on Zhang’s discoveries, for the treatment of sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia.

The National Medal of Technology and Innovation was established in 1980 and is administered for the White House by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Patent and Trademark Office. The award recognizes those who have made lasting contributions to America’s competitiveness and quality of life and helped strengthen the nation’s technological workforce.

How the brain prevents us from falling

by MIT Dept of Brain and Cognitive Sciences |

This post is adapted from an MIT research news story.

***

As we navigate the world, we adapt our movement in response to changes in the environment. From rocky terrain to moving escalators, we seamlessly modify our movements to maximize energy efficiency and our reduce risk of falling. The computational principles underlying this phenomenon, however, are not well understood.

In a recent paper published in the journal Nature Communications, MIT researchers proposed a model that explains how humans continuously adapt yet remain stable during complex tasks like walking.

“Much of our prior theoretical understanding of adaptation has been limited to episodic tasks, such as reaching for an object in a novel environment,” says senior author Nidhi Seethapathi, the Frederick A. (1971) and Carole J. Middleton Career Development Assistant Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. “This new theoretical model captures adaptation phenomena in continuous long-horizon tasks in multiple locomotor settings.”

Barrett Clark, a robotics software engineer at Bright Minds Inc and and Manoj Srinivasan, an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University, are also authors on the paper.

Principles of locomotor adaptation

In episodic tasks, like reaching for an object, errors during one episode do not affect the next episode. In tasks like locomotion, errors can have a cascade of short-term and long-term consequences to stability unless they are controlled. This makes the challenge of adapting locomotion in a new environment  more complex.

To build the model, the researchers identified general principles of locomotor adaptation across a variety of task settings, and  developed a unified modular and hierarchical model of locomotor adaptation, with each component having its own unique mathematical structure.

The resulting model successfully encapsulates how humans adapt their walking in novel settings such as on a split-belt treadmill with each foot at a different speed, wearing asymmetric leg weights, and wearing  an exoskeleton. The authors report that the model successfully reproduced human locomotor adaptation phenomena across novel settings in 10 prior studies and correctly predicted the adaptation behavior observed in two new experiments conducted as part of the study.

The model has potential applications in sensorimotor learning, rehabilitation, and wearable robotics.

“Having a model that can predict how a person will adapt to a new environment has immense utility for engineering better rehabilitation paradigms and wearable robot control,” says Seethapathi, who is also an associate investigator at MIT’s McGovern Institute. “You can think of a wearable robot itself as a new environment for the person to move in, and our model can be used to predict how a person will adapt for different robot settings. Understanding such human-robot adaptation is currently an experimentally intensive process, and our model  could help speed up the process by narrowing the search space.”

3 Questions: Claire Wang on training the brain for memory sports

by Zach Winn | MIT News |

On Nov. 10, some of the country’s top memorizers converged on MIT’s Kresge Auditorium to compete in a “Tournament of Memory Champions” in front of a live audience.

The competition was split into four events: long-term memory, words-to-remember, auditory memory, and double-deck of cards, in which competitors must memorize the exact order of two decks of cards. In between the events, MIT faculty who are experts in the science of memory provided short talks and demos about memory and how to improve it. Among the competitors was MIT’s own Claire Wang, a sophomore majoring in electrical engineering and computer science. Wang has competed in memory sports for years, a hobby that has taken her around the world to learn from some of the best memorists on the planet. At the tournament, she tied for first place in the words-to-remember competition.

The event commemorated the 25th anniversary of the USA Memory Championship Organization (USAMC). USAMC sponsored the event in partnership with MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, the MIT Quest for Intelligence, and the company Lumosity.

MIT News sat down with Wang to learn more about her experience with memory competitions — and see if she had any advice for those of us with less-than-amazing memory skills.

Q: How did you come to get involved in memory competitions?

A: When I was in middle school, I read the book “Moonwalking with Einstein,” which is about a journalist’s journey from average memory to being named memory champion in 2006. My parents were also obsessed with this TV show where people were memorizing decks of cards and performing other feats of memory. I had already known about the concept of “memory palaces,” so I was inspired to explore memory sports. Somehow, I convinced my parents to let me take a gap year after seventh grade, and I travelled the world going to competitions and learning from memory grandmasters. I got to know the community in that time and I got to build my memory system, which was really fun. I did a lot less of those competitions after that year and some subsequent competitions with the USA memory competition, but it’s still fun to have this ability.

Q: What was the Tournament of Memory Champions like?

A: USAMC invited a lot of winners from previous years to compete, which was really cool. It was nice seeing a lot of people I haven’t seen in years. I didn’t compete in every event because I was too busy to do the long-term memory, which takes you two weeks of memorization work. But it was a really cool experience. I helped a bit with the brainstorming beforehand because I know one of the professors running it. We thought about how to give the talks and structure the event.

Then I competed in the words event, which is when they give you 300 words over 15 minutes, and the competitors have to recall each one in order in a round robin competition. You got two strikes. A lot of other competitions just make you write the words down. The round robin makes it more fun for people to watch. I tied with someone else — I made a dumb mistake — so I was kind of sad in hindsight, but being tied for first is still great.

Since I hadn’t done this in a while (and I was coming back from a trip where I didn’t get much sleep), I was a bit nervous that my brain wouldn’t be able to remember anything, and I was pleasantly surprised I didn’t just blank on stage. Also, since I hadn’t done this in a while, a lot of my loci and memory palaces were forgotten, so I had to speed-review them before the competition. The words event doesn’t get easier over time — it’s just 300 random words (which could range from “disappointment” to “chair”) and you just have to remember the order.

Q: What is your approach to improving memory?

A: The whole idea is that we memorize images, feelings, and emotions much better than numbers or random words. The way it works in practice is we make an ordered set of locations in a “memory palace.” The palace could be anything. It could be a campus or a classroom or a part of a room, but you imagine yourself walking through this space, so there’s a specific order to it, and in every location I place certain information. This is information related to what I’m trying to remember. I have pictures I associate with words and I have specific images I correlate with numbers. Once you have a correlated image system, all you need to remember is a story, and then when you recall, you translate that back to the original information.

Doing memory sports really helps you with visualization, and being able to visualize things faster and better helps you remember things better. You start remembering with spaced repetition that you can talk yourself through. Allowing things to have an emotional connection is also important, because you remember emotions better. Doing memory competitions made me want to study neuroscience and computer science at MIT.

The specific memory sports techniques are not as useful in everyday life as you’d think, because a lot of the information we learn is more operative and requires intuitive understanding, but I do think they help in some ways. First, sometimes you have to initially remember things before you can develop a strong intuition later. Also, since I have to get really good at telling a lot of stories over time, I have gotten great at visualization and manipulating objects in my mind, which helps a lot.