Researcher: Mehrdad Jazayeri

Simons Center’s collaborative approach propels autism research, at MIT and beyond

by David Orenstein |

The secret to the success of MIT’s Simons Center for the Social Brain is in the name. With a founding philosophy of “collaboration and community” that has supported scores of scientists across more than a dozen Boston-area research institutions, the SCSB advances research by being inherently social.

SCSB’s mission is “to understand the neural mechanisms underlying social cognition and behavior and to translate this knowledge into better diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders.” When Director Mriganka Sur founded the center in 2012 in partnership with the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative (SFARI) of Jim and Marilyn Simons, he envisioned a different way to achieve urgently needed research progress than the traditional approach of funding isolated projects in individual labs. Sur wanted SCSB’s contribution to go beyond papers, though it has generated about 350 and counting. He sought the creation of a sustained, engaged autism research community at MIT and beyond.

“When you have a really big problem that spans so many issues — a clinical presentation, a gene, and everything in between — you have to grapple with multiple scales of inquiry,” says Sur, the Newton Professor of Neuroscience in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences (BCS) and The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory. “This cannot be solved by one person or one lab. We need to span multiple labs and multiple ways of thinking. That was our vision.”

In parallel with a rich calendar of public colloquia, lunches, and special events, SCSB catalyzes multiperspective, multiscale research collaborations in two programmatic ways. Targeted projects fund multidisciplinary teams of scientists with complementary expertise to collectively tackle a pressing scientific question. Meanwhile, the center supports postdoctoral Simons Fellows with not one, but two mentors, ensuring a further cross-pollination of ideas and methods.

Complementary collaboration

In 11 years, SCSB has funded nine targeted projects. Each one, by design, involves a deep and multifaceted exploration of a major question with both fundamental importance and clinical relevance. The first project, back in 2013, for example, marshaled three labs spanning BCS, the Department of Biology, and The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research to advance understanding of how mutation of the Shank3 gene leads to the pathophysiology of Phelan-McDermid Syndrome by working across scales ranging from individual neural connections to whole neurons to circuits and behavior.

Other past projects have applied similarly integrated, multiscale approaches to topics ranging from how 16p11.2 gene deletion alters the development of brain circuits and cognition to the critical role of the thalamic reticular nucleus in information flow during sleep and wakefulness. Two others produced deep examinations of cognitive functions: how we go from hearing a string of words to understanding a sentence’s intended meaning, and the neural and behavioral correlates of deficits in making predictions about social and sensory stimuli. Yet another project laid the groundwork for developing a new animal model for autism research.

SFARI is especially excited by SCSB’s team science approach, says Kelsey Martin, executive vice president of autism and neuroscience at the Simons Foundation. “I’m delighted by the collaborative spirit of the SCSB,” Martin says. “It’s wonderful to see and learn about the multidisciplinary team-centered collaborations sponsored by the center.”

New projects

In the last year, SCSB has launched three new targeted projects. One team is investigating why many people with autism experience sensory overload and is testing potential interventions to help. The scientists hypothesize that patients experience a deficit in filtering out the mundane stimuli that neurotypical people predict are safe to ignore. Studies suggest the predictive filter relies on relatively low-frequency “alpha/beta” brain rhythms from deep layers of the cortex moderating the higher frequency “gamma” rhythms in superficial layers that process sensory information.

Together, the labs of Charles Nelson, professor of pediatrics at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH), and BCS faculty members Bob Desimone, the Doris and Don Berkey Professor of Neuroscience at MIT and director of the McGovern Institute, and Earl K. Miller, the Picower Professor, are testing the hypothesis in two different animal models at MIT and in human volunteers at BCH. In the animals they’ll also try out a new real-time feedback system invented in Miller’s lab that can potentially correct the balance of these rhythms in the brain. And in an animal model engineered with a Shank3 mutation, Desimone’s lab will test a gene therapy, too.

“None of us could do all aspects of this project on our own,” says Miller, an investigator in the Picower Institute. “It could only come about because the three of us are working together, using different approaches.”

Right from the start, Desimone says, close collaboration with Nelson’s group at BCH has been essential. To ensure his and Miller’s measurements in the animals and Nelson’s measurements in the humans are as comparable as possible, they have tightly coordinated their research protocols.

“If we hadn’t had this joint grant we would have chosen a completely different, random set of parameters than Chuck, and the results therefore wouldn’t have been comparable. It would be hard to relate them,” says Desimone, who also directs MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research. “This is a project that could not be accomplished by one lab operating in isolation.”

Another targeted project brings together a coalition of seven labs — six based in BCS (professors Evelina Fedorenko, Edward Gibson, Nancy Kanwisher, Roger Levy, Rebecca Saxe, and Joshua Tenenbaum) and one at Dartmouth College (Caroline Robertson) — for a synergistic study of the cognitive, neural, and computational underpinnings of conversational exchanges. The study will integrate the linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of conversational ability in neurotypical adults and children and those with autism.

Fedorenko said the project builds on advances and collaborations from the earlier language Targeted Project she led with Kanwisher.

“Many directions that we started to pursue continue to be active directions in our labs. But most importantly, it was really fun and allowed the PIs [principal investigators] to interact much more than we normally would and to explore exciting interdisciplinary questions,” Fedorenko says. “When Mriganka approached me a few years after the project’s completion asking about a possible new targeted project, I jumped at the opportunity.”

Gibson and Robertson are studying how people align their dialogue, not only in the content and form of their utterances, but using eye contact. Fedorenko and Kanwisher will employ fMRI to discover key components of a conversation network in the cortex. Saxe will examine the development of conversational ability in toddlers using novel MRI techniques. Levy and Tenenbaum will complement these efforts to improve computational models of language processing and conversation.

The newest Targeted Project posits that the immune system can be harnessed to help treat behavioral symptoms of autism. Four labs — three in BCS and one at Harvard Medical School (HMS) — will study mechanisms by which peripheral immune cells can deliver a potentially therapeutic cytokine to the brain. A study by two of the collaborators, MIT associate professor Gloria Choi and HMS associate professor Jun Huh, showed that when IL-17a reaches excitatory neurons in a region of the mouse cortex, it can calm hyperactivity in circuits associated with social and repetitive behavior symptoms. Huh, an immunologist, will examine how IL-17a can get from the periphery to the brain, while Choi will examine how it has its neurological effects. Sur and MIT associate professor Myriam Heiman will conduct studies of cell types that bridge neural circuits with brain circulatory systems.

“It is quite amazing that we have a core of scientists working on very different things coming together to tackle this one common goal,” Choi says. “I really value that.”

Multiple mentors

While SCSB Targeted Projects unify labs around research, the center’s Simons Fellowships unify labs around young researchers, providing not only funding, but a pair of mentors and free-flowing interactions between their labs. Fellows also gain opportunities to inform and inspire their fundamental research by visiting with patients with autism, Sur says.

“The SCSB postdoctoral program serves a critical role in ensuring that a diversity of outstanding scientists are exposed to autism research during their training, providing a pipeline of new talent and creativity for the field,” adds Martin, of the Simons Foundation.

Simons Fellows praise the extra opportunities afforded by additional mentoring. Postdoc Alex Major was a Simons Fellow in Miller’s lab and that of Nancy Kopell, a mathematics professor at Boston University renowned for her modeling of the brain wave phenomena that the Miller lab studies experimentally.

“The dual mentorship structure is a very useful aspect of the fellowship” Major says. “It is both a chance to network with another PI and provides experience in a different neuroscience sub-field.”

Miller says co-mentoring expands the horizons and capabilities of not only the mentees but also the mentors and their labs. “Collaboration is 21st century neuroscience,” Miller says. “Some our studies of the brain have gotten too big and comprehensive to be encapsulated in just one laboratory. Some of these big questions require multiple approaches and multiple techniques.”

Desimone, who recently co-mentored Seng Bum (Michael Yoo) along with BCS and McGovern colleague Mehrdad Jazayeri in a project studying how animals learn from observing others, agrees.

“We hear from postdocs all the time that they wish they had two mentors, just in general to get another point of view,” Desimone says. “This is a really good thing and it’s a way for faculty members to learn about what other faculty members and their postdocs are doing.”

Indeed, the Simons Center model suggests that research can be very successful when it’s collaborative and social.

The brain runs an internal simulation to keep track of time

by Jennifer Michalowski |

Clocks, computers, and metronomes can keep time with exquisite precision. But even in the absence of an external time keeper, we can track time on our own. We know when minutes or hours have elapsed, and we can maintain a rhythm when we dance, sing, or play music. Now, neuroscientists at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and MIT’s McGovern Institute and have discovered one way the brain keeps a beat: It runs an internal simulation, mentally recreating the perception of an external rhythm and preparing an appropriately timed response.

The discovery, reported January 10, 2024, in the journal Science Advances, illustrates how animals can think about imaginary events and use an internal model to guide their interactions with the world. “It’s a real indication of mental states as an independent driver of behavior,” says neuroscientist Mehrdad Jazayeri, an investigator at the McGovern Institute and an associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT.

Predicting the future

Jazayeri teamed up with Victor de Lafuente, a neuroscientist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, to investigate the brain’s time-keeping ability. De Lafuente, who led the study, says they were motivated by curiosity about how the brain makes predictions and prepares for future states of the world.

De Lafuente and his team used a visual metronome to teach monkeys a simple rhythm, showing them a circle that moved between two positions on a screen to set a steady tempo. Then the metronome stopped. After a variable and unpredictable pause, the monkeys were asked to indicate where the dot would be if the metronome had carried on.

Monkeys do well at this task, successfully keeping time after the metronome stops. After the waiting period, they are usually able to identify the expected position of the circle, which they communicate by reaching towards a touchscreen.

To find out how the animals were keeping track of the metronome’s rhythm, de Lafuente’s group monitored their brain activity. In several key brain regions, they found rhythmic patterns of activity that oscillated at the same frequency as the metronome. This occurred while the monkeys watched the metronome. More remarkably, it continued after the metronome had stopped.

“The animal is seeing things going and then things stop. What we find in the brain is the continuation of that process in the animal’s mind,” Jazayeri says. “An entire network is replicating what it was doing.”

That was true in the visual cortex, where clusters of neurons respond to stimuli in specific spots within the eyes’ field of view. One set of cells in the visual cortex fired when the metronome’s circle was on the left of the screen; another set fired when the dot was on the right. As a monkey followed the visual metronome, the researchers could see these cells’ activity alternating rhythmically, tracking the movement. When the metronome stopped, the back-and-forth neural activity continued, maintaining the rhythm. “Once the stimulus was no longer visible, they were seeing the stimulus within their minds,” de Lafuente says.

They found something similar in the brain’s motor cortex, where movements are prepared and executed. De Lafuente explains that the monkeys are motionless for most of their time-keeping task; only when they are asked to indicate where the metronome’s circle should be do they move a hand to touch the screen. But the motor cortex was engaged even before it was time to move. “Within their brains there is a signal that is switching from the left to the right,” he says. “So the monkeys are thinking ‘left, right, left, right’—even when they are not moving and the world is constant.”

While some scientists have proposed that the brain may have a central time-keeping mechanism, the team’s findings indicate that entire networks can be called on to track the passage of time. The monkeys’ model of the future was surprisingly explicit, de Lafuente says, representing specific sensory stimuli and plans for movement. “This offers a potential solution to mentally tracking the dynamics in the world, which is to basically think about them in terms of how they actually would have happened,” Jazayeri says.

 

The brain may learn about the world the same way some computational models do

Anne Trafton |

To make our way through the world, our brain must develop an intuitive understanding of the physical world around us, which we then use to interpret sensory information coming into the brain.

How does the brain develop that intuitive understanding? Many scientists believe that it may use a process similar to what’s known as “self-supervised learning.” This type of machine learning, originally developed as a way to create more efficient models for computer vision, allows computational models to learn about visual scenes based solely on the similarities and differences between them, with no labels or other information.

A pair of studies from researchers at the K. Lisa Yang Integrative Computational Neuroscience (ICoN) Center at MIT offers new evidence supporting this hypothesis. The researchers found that when they trained models known as neural networks using a particular type of self-supervised learning, the resulting models generated activity patterns very similar to those seen in the brains of animals that were performing the same tasks as the models.

The findings suggest that these models are able to learn representations of the physical world that they can use to make accurate predictions about what will happen in that world, and that the mammalian brain may be using the same strategy, the researchers say.

“The theme of our work is that AI designed to help build better robots ends up also being a framework to better understand the brain more generally,” says Aran Nayebi, a postdoc in the ICoN Center. “We can’t say if it’s the whole brain yet, but across scales and disparate brain areas, our results seem to be suggestive of an organizing principle.”

Nayebi is the lead author of one of the studies, co-authored with Rishi Rajalingham, a former MIT postdoc now at Meta Reality Labs, and senior authors Mehrdad Jazayeri, an associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences and a member of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research; and Robert Yang, an assistant professor of brain and cognitive sciences and an associate member of the McGovern Institute. Ila Fiete, director of the ICoN Center, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences, and an associate member of the McGovern Institute, is the senior author of the other study, which was co-led by Mikail Khona, an MIT graduate student, and Rylan Schaeffer, a former senior research associate at MIT.

Both studies will be presented at the 2023 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) in December.

Modeling the physical world

Early models of computer vision mainly relied on supervised learning. Using this approach, models are trained to classify images that are each labeled with a name — cat, car, etc. The resulting models work well, but this type of training requires a great deal of human-labeled data.

To create a more efficient alternative, in recent years researchers have turned to models built through a technique known as contrastive self-supervised learning. This type of learning allows an algorithm to learn to classify objects based on how similar they are to each other, with no external labels provided.

“This is a very powerful method because you can now leverage very large modern data sets, especially videos, and really unlock their potential,” Nayebi says. “A lot of the modern AI that you see now, especially in the last couple years with ChatGPT and GPT-4, is a result of training a self-supervised objective function on a large-scale dataset to obtain a very flexible representation.”

These types of models, also called neural networks, consist of thousands or millions of processing units connected to each other. Each node has connections of varying strengths to other nodes in the network. As the network analyzes huge amounts of data, the strengths of those connections change as the network learns to perform the desired task.

As the model performs a particular task, the activity patterns of different units within the network can be measured. Each unit’s activity can be represented as a firing pattern, similar to the firing patterns of neurons in the brain. Previous work from Nayebi and others has shown that self-supervised models of vision generate activity similar to that seen in the visual processing system of mammalian brains.

In both of the new NeurIPS studies, the researchers set out to explore whether self-supervised computational models of other cognitive functions might also show similarities to the mammalian brain. In the study led by Nayebi, the researchers trained self-supervised models to predict the future state of their environment across hundreds of thousands of naturalistic videos depicting everyday scenarios.

“For the last decade or so, the dominant method to build neural network models in cognitive neuroscience is to train these networks on individual cognitive tasks. But models trained this way rarely generalize to other tasks,” Yang says. “Here we test whether we can build models for some aspect of cognition by first training on naturalistic data using self-supervised learning, then evaluating in lab settings.”

Once the model was trained, the researchers had it generalize to a task they call “Mental-Pong.” This is similar to the video game Pong, where a player moves a paddle to hit a ball traveling across the screen. In the Mental-Pong version, the ball disappears shortly before hitting the paddle, so the player has to estimate its trajectory in order to hit the ball.

The researchers found that the model was able to track the hidden ball’s trajectory with accuracy similar to that of neurons in the mammalian brain, which had been shown in a previous study by Rajalingham and Jazayeri to simulate its trajectory — a cognitive phenomenon known as “mental simulation.” Furthermore, the neural activation patterns seen within the model were similar to those seen in the brains of animals as they played the game — specifically, in a part of the brain called the dorsomedial frontal cortex. No other class of computational model has been able to match the biological data as closely as this one, the researchers say.

“There are many efforts in the machine learning community to create artificial intelligence,” Jazayeri says. “The relevance of these models to neurobiology hinges on their ability to additionally capture the inner workings of the brain. The fact that Aran’s model predicts neural data is really important as it suggests that we may be getting closer to building artificial systems that emulate natural intelligence.”

Navigating the world

The study led by Khona, Schaeffer, and Fiete focused on a type of specialized neurons known as grid cells. These cells, located in the entorhinal cortex, help animals to navigate, working together with place cells located in the hippocampus.

While place cells fire whenever an animal is in a specific location, grid cells fire only when the animal is at one of the vertices of a triangular lattice. Groups of grid cells create overlapping lattices of different sizes, which allows them to encode a large number of positions using a relatively small number of cells.

In recent studies, researchers have trained supervised neural networks to mimic grid cell function by predicting an animal’s next location based on its starting point and velocity, a task known as path integration. However, these models hinged on access to privileged information about absolute space at all times — information that the animal does not have.

Inspired by the striking coding properties of the multiperiodic grid-cell code for space, the MIT team trained a contrastive self-supervised model to both perform this same path integration task and represent space efficiently while doing so. For the training data, they used sequences of velocity inputs. The model learned to distinguish positions based on whether they were similar or different — nearby positions generated similar codes, but further positions generated more different codes.

“It’s similar to training models on images, where if two images are both heads of cats, their codes should be similar, but if one is the head of a cat and one is a truck, then you want their codes to repel,” Khona says. “We’re taking that same idea but applying it to spatial trajectories.”

Once the model was trained, the researchers found that the activation patterns of the nodes within the model formed several lattice patterns with different periods, very similar to those formed by grid cells in the brain.

“What excites me about this work is that it makes connections between mathematical work on the striking information-theoretic properties of the grid cell code and the computation of path integration,” Fiete says. “While the mathematical work was analytic — what properties does the grid cell code possess? — the approach of optimizing coding efficiency through self-supervised learning and obtaining grid-like tuning is synthetic: It shows what properties might be necessary and sufficient to explain why the brain has grid cells.”

The research was funded by the K. Lisa Yang ICoN Center, the National Institutes of Health, the Simons Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, the McGovern Institute, and the Helen Hay Whitney Foundation.

Study decodes surprising approach mice take in learning

by David Orenstein |

Neuroscience discoveries ranging from the nature of memory to treatments for disease have depended on reading the minds of mice, so researchers need to truly understand what the rodents’ behavior is telling them during experiments. In a new study that examines learning from reward, MIT researchers deciphered some initially mystifying mouse behavior, yielding new ideas about how mice think and a mathematical tool to aid future research.

The task the mice were supposed to master is simple: Turn a wheel left or right to get a reward and then recognize when the reward direction switches. When neurotypical people play such “reversal learning” games they quickly infer the optimal approach: stick with the direction that works until it doesn’t and then switch right away. Notably, people with schizophrenia struggle with the task. In the new study in PLOS Computational Biology, mice surprised scientists by showing that while they were capable of learning the “win-stay, lose-shift” strategy, they nonetheless refused to fully adopt it.

“It is not that mice cannot form an inference-based model of this environment—they can,” said corresponding author Mriganka Sur, Newton Professor in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences (BCS). “The surprising thing is that they don’t persist with it. Even in a single block of the game where you know the reward is 100 percent on one side, every so often they will try the other side.”

While the mouse motif of departing from the optimal strategy could be due to a failure to hold it in memory, said lead author and Sur Lab graduate student Nhat Le, another possibility is that mice don’t commit to the “win-stay, lose-shift” approach because they don’t trust that their circumstances will remain stable or predictable. Instead, they might deviate from the optimal regime to test whether the rules have changed. Natural settings, after all, are rarely stable or predictable.

“I’d like to think mice are smarter than we give them credit for,” Le said.

But regardless of which reason may cause the mice to mix strategies, added co-senior author Mehrdad Jazayeri, Associate Professor in BCS and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, it is important for researchers to recognize that they do and to be able to tell when and how they are choosing one strategy or another.

“This study highlights the fact that, unlike the accepted wisdom, mice doing lab tasks do not necessarily adopt a stationary strategy and it offers a computationally rigorous approach to detect and quantify such non-stationarities,” he said. “This ability is important because when researchers record the neural activity, their interpretation of the underlying algorithms and mechanisms may be invalid when they do not take the animals’ shifting strategies into account.”

Tracking thinking

The research team, which also includes co-author Murat Yildirim, a former Sur lab postdoc who is now an assistant professor at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, initially expected that the mice might adopt one strategy or the other. They simulated the results they’d expect to see if the mice either adopted the optimal strategy of inferring a rule about the task, or more randomly surveying whether left or right turns were being rewarded. Mouse behavior on the task, even after days, varied widely but it never resembled the results simulated by just one strategy.

To differing, individual extents, mouse performance on the task reflected variance along three parameters: how quickly they switched directions after the rule switched, how long it took them to transition to the new direction, and how loyal they remained to the new direction. Across 21 mice, the raw data represented a surprising diversity of outcomes on a task that neurotypical humans uniformly optimize. But the mice clearly weren’t helpless. Their average performance significantly improved over time, even though it plateaued below the optimal level.

In the task, the rewarded side switched every 15-25 turns. The team realized the mice were using more than one strategy in each such “block” of the game, rather than just inferring the simple rule and optimizing based on that inference. To disentangle when the mice were employing that strategy or another, the team harnessed an analytical framework called a Hidden Markov Model (HMM), which can computationally tease out when one unseen state is producing a result vs. another unseen state. Le likens it to what a judge on a cooking show might do: inferring which chef contestant made which version of a dish based on patterns in each plate of food before them.

Before the team could use an HMM to decipher their mouse performance results, however, they had to adapt it. A typical HMM might apply to individual mouse choices, but here the team modified it to explain choice transitions over the course of whole blocks. They dubbed their modified model the blockHMM. Computational simulations of task performance using the blockHMM showed that the algorithm is able to infer the true hidden states of an artificial agent. The authors then used this technique to show the mice were persistently blending multiple strategies, achieving varied levels of performance.

“We verified that each animal executes a mixture of behavior from multiple regimes instead of a behavior in a single domain,” Le and his co-authors wrote. “Indeed 17/21 mice used a combination of low, medium and high-performance behavior modes.”

Further analysis revealed that the strategies afoot were indeed the “correct” rule inference strategy and a more exploratory strategy consistent with randomly testing options to get turn-by-turn feedback.

Now that the researchers have decoded the peculiar approach mice take to reversal learning, they are planning to look more deeply into the brain to understand which brain regions and circuits are involved. By watching brain cell activity during the task, they hope to discern what underlies the decisions the mice make to switch strategies.

By examining reversal learning circuits in detail, Sur said, it’s possible the team will gain insights that could help explain why people with schizophrenia show diminished performance on reversal learning tasks. Sur added that some people with autism spectrum disorders also persist with newly unrewarded behaviors longer than neurotypical people, so his lab will also have that phenomenon in mind as they investigate.

Yildirim, too, is interested in examining potential clinical connections.

“This reversal learning paradigm fascinates me since I want to use it in my lab with various preclinical models of neurological disorders,” he said. “The next step for us is to determine the brain mechanisms underlying these differences in behavioral strategies and whether we can manipulate these strategies.”

Funding for the study came from The National Institutes of Health, the Army Research Office, a Paul and Lilah Newton Brain Science Research Award, the Massachusetts Life Sciences Initiative, The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and The JPB Foundation.

Modeling the social mind

by Rachel Yang |

Typically, it would take two graduate students to do the research that Setayesh Radkani is doing.

Driven by an insatiable curiosity about the human mind, she is working on two PhD thesis projects in two different cognitive neuroscience labs at MIT. For one, she is studying punishment as a social tool to influence others. For the other, she is uncovering the neural processes underlying social learning — that is, learning from others. By piecing together these two research programs, Radkani is hoping to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms underpinning social influence in the mind and brain.

Radkani lived in Iran for most of her life, growing up alongside her younger brother in Tehran. The two spent a lot of time together and have long been each other’s best friends. Her father is a civil engineer, and her mother is a midwife. Her parents always encouraged her to explore new things and follow her own path, even if it wasn’t quite what they imagined for her. And her uncle helped cultivate her sense of curiosity, teaching her to “always ask why” as a way to understand how the world works.

Growing up, Radkani most loved learning about human psychology and using math to model the world around her. But she thought it was impossible to combine her two interests. Prioritizing math, she pursued a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering at the Sharif University of Technology in Iran.

Then, late in her undergraduate studies, Radkani took a psychology course and discovered the field of cognitive neuroscience, in which scientists mathematically model the human mind and brain. She also spent a summer working in a computational neuroscience lab at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. Seeing a way to combine her interests, she decided to pivot and pursue the subject in graduate school.

An experience leading a project in her engineering ethics course during her final year of undergrad further helped her discover some of the questions that would eventually form the basis of her PhD. The project investigated why some students cheat and how to change this.

“Through this project I learned how complicated it is to understand the reasons that people engage in immoral behavior, and even more complicated than that is how to devise policies and react in these situations in order to change people’s attitudes,” Radkani says. “It was this experience that made me realize that I’m interested in studying the human social and moral mind.”

She began looking into social cognitive neuroscience research and stumbled upon a relevant TED talk by Rebecca Saxe, the John W. Jarve Professor in Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, who would eventually become one of Radkani’s research advisors. Radkani knew immediately that she wanted to work with Saxe. But she needed to first get into the BCS PhD program at MIT, a challenging obstacle given her minimal background in the field.

After two application cycles and a year’s worth of graduate courses in cognitive neuroscience, Radkani was accepted into the program. But to come to MIT, she had to leave her family behind. Coming from Iran, Radkani has a single-entry visa, making it difficult for her to travel outside the U.S. She hasn’t been able to visit her family since starting her PhD and won’t be able to until at least after she graduates. Her visa also limits her research contributions, restricting her from attending conferences outside the U.S. “That is definitely a huge burden on my education and on my mental health,” she says.

Still, Radkani is grateful to be at MIT, indulging her curiosity in the human social mind. And she’s thankful for her supportive family, who she calls over FaceTime every day.

Modeling how people think about punishment

In Saxe’s lab, Radkani is researching how people approach and react to punishment, through behavioral studies and neuroimaging. By synthesizing these findings, she’s developing a computational model of the mind that characterizes how people make decisions in situations involving punishment, such as when a parent disciplines a child, when someone punishes their romantic partner, or when the criminal justice system sentences a defendant. With this model, Radkani says she hopes to better understand “when and why punishment works in changing behavior and influencing beliefs about right and wrong, and why sometimes it fails.”

Punishment isn’t a new research topic in cognitive neuroscience, Radkani says, but in previous studies, scientists have often only focused on people’s behavior in punitive situations and haven’t considered the thought processes that underlie those behaviors. Characterizing these thought processes, though, is key to understanding whether punishment in a situation can be effective in changing people’s attitudes.

People bring their prior beliefs into a punitive situation. Apart from moral beliefs about the appropriateness of different behaviors, “you have beliefs about the characteristics of the people involved, and you have theories about their intentions and motivations,” Radkani says. “All those come together to determine what you do or how you are influenced by punishment,” given the circumstances. Punishers decide a suitable punishment based on their interpretation of the situation, in light of their beliefs. Targets of punishment then decide whether they’ll change their attitude as a result of the punishment, depending on their own beliefs. Even outside observers make decisions, choosing whether to keep or change their moral beliefs based on what they see.

To capture these decision-making processes, Radkani is developing a computational model of the mind for punitive situations. The model mathematically represents people’s beliefs and how they interact with certain features of the situation to shape their decisions. The model then predicts a punisher’s decisions, and how punishment will influence the target and observers. Through this model, Radkani will provide a foundational understanding of how people think in various punitive situations.

Researching the neural mechanisms of social learning

In parallel, working in the lab of Professor Mehrdad Jazayeri, Radkani is studying social learning, uncovering its underlying neural processes. Through social learning, people learn from other people’s experiences and decisions, and incorporate this socially acquired knowledge into their own decisions or beliefs.

Humans are extraordinary in their social learning abilities, however our primary form of learning, shared by all other animals, is learning from self-experience. To investigate how learning from others is similar to or different from learning from our own experiences, Radkani has designed a two-player video game that involves both types of learning. During the game, she and her collaborators in Jazayeri’s lab record neural activity in the brain. By analyzing these neural measurements, they plan to uncover the computations carried out by neural circuits during social learning, and compare those to learning from self-experience.

Radkani first became curious about this comparison as a way to understand why people sometimes draw contrasting conclusions from very similar situations. “For example, if I get Covid from going to a restaurant, I’ll blame the restaurant and say it was not clean,” Radkani says. “But if I hear the same thing happen to my friend, I’ll say it’s because they were not careful.” Radkani wanted to know the root causes of this mismatch in how other people’s experiences affect our beliefs and judgements differently from our own similar experiences, particularly because it can lead to “errors that color the way that we judge other people,” she says.

By combining her two research projects, Radkani hopes to better understand how social influence works, particularly in moral situations. From there, she has a slew of research questions that she’s eager to investigate, including: How do people choose who to trust? And which types of people tend to be the most influential? As Radkani’s research grows, so does her curiosity.

Tracking time in the brain

by Jennifer Michalowski |

By studying how primates mentally measure time, scientists at MIT’s McGovern Institute have discovered that the brain runs an internal clock whose speed is set by prior experience. In new experiences, the brain closely tracks how elapsed time intervals differ from its preset expectation—indicating that for the brain, time is relative.

The findings, reported September 15, 2021, in the journal Neuron, help explain how the brain uses past experience to make predictions—a powerful strategy for navigating a complex and ever-changing world. The research was led by McGovern Investigator Mehrdad Jazayeri, who is working to understand how the brain forms internal models of the world.

Internal clock

Sensory information tells us a lot about our environment, but the brain needs more than data, Jazayeri says. Internal models are vital for understanding the relationships between things, making generalizations, and interpreting and acting on our perceptions. They help us focus on what’s most important and make predictions about our surroundings, as well as the consequences of our actions. “To be efficient in learning about the world and interacting with the world, we need those predictions,” Jazayeri says. When we enter a new grocery store, for example, we don’t have to check every aisle for the peanut butter, because we know it is likely to be near the jam. Likewise, an experienced racquetball player knows how the ball will move when her paddle hits it a certain way.

Jazayeri’s team was interested in how the brain might make predictions about time. Previously, his team showed how neurons in the frontal cortex—a part of the brain involved in planning—can tick off the passage of time like a metronome. By training monkeys to use an eye movement to indicate the duration of time that separated two flashes of light, they found that cells that track time during this task cooperate to form an adjustable internal clock. Those cells generate a pattern of activity that can be drawn out to measure long time intervals or compressed to track shorter ones. The changes in these signal dynamics reflect elapsed time so precisely that by monitoring the right neurons, Jazayeri’s team can determine exactly how fast a monkey’s internal clock is running.

Predictive processing

Nicolas Meirhaeghe, a graduate student in Mehrdad Jazayeri’s lab, studies how we plan and perform movements in the face of uncertainty. He is pictured here as part of the McGovern Institute 20th anniversary “Rising Stars” photo series. Photo: Michael Spencer

For their most recent experiments, graduate student Nicolas Meirhaeghe designed a series of experiments in which the delay between the two flashes of light changed as the monkeys repeated the task. Sometimes the flashes were separated by just a fraction of a second, sometimes the delay was a bit longer. He found that the time-keeping activity pattern in the frontal cortex occurred over different time scales as the monkeys came to expect delays of different durations. As the duration of the delay fluctuated, the brain appeared to take all prior experience into account, setting the clock to measure the average of those times in anticipation of the next interval.

The behavior of the neurons told the researchers that as a monkey waited for a new set of light cues, it already had an expectation about how long the delay would be. To make such a prediction, Meirhaeghe says, “the brain has no choice but to use all the different values that you perceive from your experience, average those out, and use this as the expectation.”

By analyzing neuronal behavior during their experiments, Jazayeri and Meirhaeghe determined that the brain’s signals were not encoding the full time elapsed between light cues, but instead how that time differed from the predicted time. Calculating this prediction error enabled the monkeys to report back how much time had elapsed.

Neuroscientists have suspected that this strategy, known as predictive processing, is widely used by the brain—although until now there has been little evidence of it outside early sensory areas. “You have a lot of stimuli that are coming from the environment, but lots of stimuli are actually predictable,” Meirhaeghe says. “The idea is that your brain is learning through experience patterns in the environment, and is subtracting your expectation from the incoming signal. What the brain actually processes in the end is the result of this subtraction.”

Finally, the researchers investigated the brain’s ability to update its expectations about time. After presenting monkeys with delays within a particular time range, they switched without warning to times that fluctuated within a new range. The brain responded quickly, updating its internal clock. “If you look inside the brain, after about 100 trials the monkeys have already figured out that these statistics have changed,” says Jazayeri.

It took longer, however—as many as 1,000 trials—for the monkeys to change their behavior in response to the change. “It seems like this prediction, and updating the internal model about the statistics of the world, is way faster than our muscles are able to implement,” Jazayeri says. “Our motor system is kind of lagging behind what our cognitive abilities tell us.” This makes sense, he says, because not every change in the environment merits a change in behavior. “You don’t want to be distracted by every small thing that deviates from your prediction. You want to pay attention to things that have a certain level of consistency.”

Mehrdad Jazayeri wants to know how our brains model the external world

Anne Trafton |

Much of our daily life requires us to make inferences about the world around us. As you think about which direction your tennis opponent will hit the ball, or try to figure out why your child is crying, your brain is searching for answers about possibilities that are not directly accessible through sensory experiences.

MIT Associate Professor Mehrdad Jazayeri has devoted most of his career to exploring how the brain creates internal representations, or models, of the external world to make intelligent inferences about hidden states of the world.

“The one question I am most interested in is how does the brain form internal models of the external world? Studying inference is really a powerful way of gaining insight into these internal models,” says Jazayeri, who recently earned tenure in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and is also a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

Using a variety of approaches, including detailed analysis of behavior, direct recording of activity of neurons in the brain, and mathematical modeling, he has discovered how the brain builds models of statistical regularities in the environment. He has also found circuits and mechanisms that enable the brain to capture the causal relationships between observations and outcomes.

An unusual path

Jazayeri, who has been on the faculty at MIT since 2013, took an unusual path to a career in neuroscience. Growing up in Tehran, Iran, he was an indifferent student until his second year of high school when he got interested in solving challenging geometry puzzles. He also started programming with the ZX Spectrum, an early 8-bit personal computer, that his father had given him.

During high school, he was chosen to train for Iran’s first ever National Physics Olympiad team, but when he failed to make it to the international team, he became discouraged and temporarily gave up on the idea of going to college. Eventually, he participated in the University National Entrance Exam and was admitted to the electrical engineering department at Sharif University of Technology.

Jazayeri didn’t enjoy his four years of college education. The experience mostly helped him realize that he was not meant to become an engineer. “I realized that I’m not an inventor. What inspires me is the process of discovery,” he says. “I really like to figure things out, not build things, so those four years were not very inspiring.”

After graduating from college, Jazayeri spent a few years working on a banana farm near the Caspian Sea, along with two friends. He describes those years as among the best and most formative of his life. He would wake by 4 a.m., work on the farm until late afternoon, and spend the rest of the day thinking and reading. One topic he read about with great interest was neuroscience, which led him a few years later to apply to graduate school.

He immigrated to Canada and was admitted to the University of Toronto, where he earned a master’s degree in physiology and neuroscience. While there, he worked on building small circuit models that would mimic the activity of neurons in the hippocampus.

From there, Jazayeri went on to New York University to earn a PhD in neuroscience, where he studied how signals in the visual cortex support perception and decision-making. “I was less interested in how the visual cortex encodes the external world,” he says. “I wanted to understand how the rest of the brain decodes the signals in visual cortex, which is, in effect, an inference problem.”

He continued pursuing his interest in the neurobiology of inference as a postdoc at the University of Washington, where he investigated how the brain uses temporal regularities in the environment to estimate time intervals, and uses knowledge about those intervals to plan for future actions.

Building internal models to make inferences

Inference is the process of drawing conclusions based on information that is not readily available. Making rich inferences from scarce data is one of humans’ core mental capacities, one that is central to what makes us the most intelligent species on Earth. To do so, our nervous system builds internal models of the external world, and those models that help us think through possibilities without directly experiencing them.

The problem of inferences presents itself in many behavioral settings.

“Our nervous system makes all sorts of internal models for different behavioral goals, some that capture the statistical regularities in the environment, some that link potential causes to effects, some that reflect relationships between entities, and some that enable us to think about others,” Jazayeri says.

Jazayeri’s lab at MIT is made up of a group of cognitive scientists, electrophysiologists, engineers, and physicists with a shared interest in understanding the nature of internal models in the brain and how those models enable us to make inferences in different behavioral tasks.

Early work in the lab focused on a simple timing task to examine the problem of statistical inference, that is, how we use statistical regularities in the environment to make accurate inference. First, they found that the brain coordinates movements in time using a dynamic process, akin to an analog timer. They also found that the neural representation of time in the frontal cortex is being continuously calibrated based on prior experience so that we can make more accurate time estimates in the presence of uncertainty.

Later, the lab developed a complex decision-making task to examine the neural basis of causal inference, or the process of deducing a hidden cause based on its effects. In a paper that appeared in 2019, Jazayeri and his colleagues identified a hierarchical and distributed brain circuit in the frontal cortex that helps the brain to determine the most probable cause of failure within a hierarchy of decisions.

More recently, the lab has extended its investigation to other behavioral domains, including relational inference and social inference. Relational inference is about situating an ambiguous observation using relational memory. For example, coming out of a subway in a new neighborhood, we may use our knowledge of the relationship between visible landmarks to infer which way is north. Social inference, which is extremely difficult to study, involves deducing other people’s beliefs and goals based on their actions.

Along with studies in human volunteers and animal models, Jazayeri’s lab develops computational models based on neural networks, which helps them to test different possible hypotheses of how the brain performs specific tasks. By comparing the activity of those models with neural activity data from animals, the researchers can gain insight into how the brain actually performs a particular type of inference task.

“My main interest is in how the brain makes inferences about the world based on the neural signals,” Jazayeri says. “All of my work is about looking inside the brain, measuring signals, and using mathematical tools to try to understand how those signals are manifestations of an internal model within the brain.”

Storytelling brings MIT neuroscience community together

by Julie Pryor |

When the coronavirus pandemic shut down offices, labs, and classrooms across the MIT campus last spring, many members of the MIT community found it challenging to remain connected to one another in meaningful ways. Motivated by a desire to bring the neuroscience community back together, the McGovern Institute hosted a virtual storytelling competition featuring a selection of postdocs, grad students, and staff from across the institute.

“This has been an unprecedented year for us all,” says McGovern Institute Director Robert Desimone. “It has been twenty years since Pat and Lore McGovern founded the McGovern Institute, and despite the challenges this anniversary year has brought to our community, I have been inspired by the strength and perseverance demonstrated by our faculty, postdocs, students and staff. The resilience of this neuroscience community – and MIT as a whole – is indeed something to celebrate.”

The McGovern Institute had initially planned to hold a large 20th anniversary celebration in the atrium of Building 46 in the fall of 2020, but the pandemic made a gathering of this size impossible. The institute instead held a series of virtual events, including the November 12 story slam on the theme of resilience.

Nine MIT School of Science professors receive tenure for 2020

by School of Science |

Beginning July 1, nine faculty members in the MIT School of Science have been granted tenure by MIT. They are appointed in the departments of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics.

Physicist Ibrahim Cisse investigates living cells to reveal and study collective behaviors and biomolecular phase transitions at the resolution of single molecules. The results of his work help determine how disruptions in genes can cause diseases like cancer. Cisse joined the Department of Physics in 2014 and now holds a joint appointment with the Department of Biology. His education includes a bachelor’s degree in physics from North Carolina Central University, concluded in 2004, and a doctoral degree in physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, achieved in 2009. He followed his PhD with a postdoc at the École Normale Supérieure of Paris and a research specialist appointment at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Research Campus.

Jörn Dunkel is a physical applied mathematician. His research focuses on the mathematical description of complex nonlinear phenomena in a variety of fields, especially biophysics. The models he develops help predict dynamical behaviors and structure formation processes in developmental biology, fluid dynamics, and even knot strengths for sailing, rock climbing and construction. He joined the Department of Mathematics in 2013 after completing postdoctoral appointments at Oxford University and Cambridge University. He received diplomas in physics and mathematics from Humboldt University of Berlin in 2004 and 2005, respectively. The University of Augsburg awarded Dunkel a PhD in statistical physics in 2008.

A cognitive neuroscientist, Mehrdad Jazayeri studies the neurobiological underpinnings of mental functions such as planning, inference, and learning by analyzing brain signals in the lab and using theoretical and computational models, including artificial neural networks. He joined the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences in 2013. He achieved a BS in electrical engineering from the Sharif University of Technology in 1994, an MS in physiology at the University of Toronto in 2001, and a PhD in neuroscience from New York University in 2007. Prior to joining MIT, he was a postdoc at the University of Washington. Jazayeri is also an investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

Yen-Jie Lee is an experimental particle physicist in the field of proton-proton and heavy-ion physics. Utilizing the Large Hadron Colliders, Lee explores matter in extreme conditions, providing new insight into strong interactions and what might have existed and occurred at the beginning of the universe and in distant star cores. His work on jets and heavy flavor particle production in nuclei collisions improves understanding of the quark-gluon plasma, predicted by quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations, and the structure of heavy nuclei. He also pioneered studies of high-density QCD with electron-position annihilation data. Lee joined the Department of Physics in 2013 after a fellowship at CERN and postdoc research at the Laboratory for Nuclear Science at MIT. His bachelor’s and master’s degrees were awarded by the National Taiwan University in 2002 and 2004, respectively, and his doctoral degree by MIT in 2011. Lee is a member of the Laboratory for Nuclear Science.

Josh McDermott investigates the sense of hearing. His research addresses both human and machine audition using tools from experimental psychology, engineering, and neuroscience. McDermott hopes to better understand the neural computation underlying human hearing, to improve devices to assist hearing impaired, and to enhance machine interpretation of sounds. Prior to joining MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, he was awarded a BA in 1998 in brain and cognitive sciences by Harvard University, a master’s degree in computational neuroscience in 2000 by University College London, and a PhD in brain and cognitive sciences in 2006 by MIT. Between his doctoral time at MIT and returning as a faculty member, he was a postdoc at the University of Minnesota and New York University, and a visiting scientist at Oxford University. McDermott is also an associate investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research and an investigator in the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines.

Solving environmental challenges by studying and manipulating chemical reactions is the focus of Yogesh Surendranath’s research. Using chemistry, he works at the molecular level to understand how to efficiently interconvert chemical and electrical energy. His fundamental studies aim to improve energy storage technologies, such as batteries, fuel cells, and electrolyzers, that can be used to meet future energy demand with reduced carbon emissions. Surendranath joined the Department of Chemistry in 2013 after a postdoc at the University of California at Berkeley. His PhD was completed in 2011 at MIT, and BS in 2006 at the University of Virginia. Suendranath is also a collaborator in the MIT Energy Initiative.

A theoretical astrophysicist, Mark Vogelsberger is interested in large-scale structures of the universe, such as galaxy formation. He combines observational data, theoretical models, and simulations that require high-performance supercomputers to improve and develop detailed models that simulate galaxy diversity, clustering, and their properties, including a plethora of physical effects like magnetic fields, cosmic dust, and thermal conduction. Vogelsberger also uses simulations to generate scenarios involving alternative forms of dark matter. He joined the Department of Physics in 2014 after a postdoc at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Vogelsberger is a 2006 graduate of the University of Mainz undergraduate program in physics, and a 2010 doctoral graduate of the University of Munich and the Max Plank Institute for Astrophysics. He is also a principal investigator in the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research.

Adam Willard is a theoretical chemist with research interests that fall across molecular biology, renewable energy, and material science. He uses theory, modeling, and molecular simulation to study the disorder that is inherent to systems over nanometer-length scales. His recent work has highlighted the fundamental and unexpected role that such disorder plays in phenomena such as microscopic energy transport in semiconducting plastics, ion transport in batteries, and protein hydration. Joining the Department of Chemistry in 2013, Willard was formerly a postdoc at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and then the University of Texas at Austin. He holds a PhD in chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley, achieved in 2009, and a BS in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Puget Sound, granted in 2003.

Lindley Winslow seeks to understand the fundamental particles shaped the evolution of our universe. As an experimental particle and nuclear physicist, she develops novel detection technology to search for axion dark matter and a proposed nuclear decay that makes more matter than antimatter. She started her faculty position in the Department of Physics in 2015 following a postdoc at MIT and a subsequent faculty position at the University of California at Los Angeles. Winslow achieved her BA in physics and astronomy in 2001 and PhD in physics in 2008, both at the University of California at Berkeley. She is also a member of the Laboratory for Nuclear Science.

Empowering faculty partnerships across the globe

by MIT News Office |

MIT faculty share their creative and technical talent on campus as well as across the globe, compounding the Institute’s impact through strong international partnerships. Thanks to the MIT Global Seed Funds (GSF) program, managed by the MIT International Science and Technology Initiatives (MISTI), more of these faculty members will be able to build on these relationships to develop ideas and create new projects.

“This MISTI fund was extremely helpful in consolidating our collaboration and has been the start of a long-term interaction between the two teams,” says 2017 GSF awardee Mehrdad Jazayeri, associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences and investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research. “We have already submitted multiple abstracts to conferences together, mapped out several ongoing projects, and secured international funding thanks to the preliminary progress this seed fund enabled.”

This year, the 28 funds that comprise MISTI GSF received 232 MIT applications. Over $2.3 million was awarded to 107 projects from 23 departments across the entire Institute. This brings the amount awarded to $22 million over the 12-year life of the program. Besides supporting faculty, these funds also provide meaningful educational opportunities for students. The majority of GSF teams include students from MIT and international collaborators, bolstering both their research portfolios and global experience.

“This project has had important impact on my grad student’s education and development. She was able to apply techniques she has learned to a new and challenging system, mentor an international student, participate in a major international meeting, and visit CEA,” says Professor of Chemistry Elizabeth Nolan, a 2017 GSF awardee.

On top of these academic and research goals, students are actively broadening their cultural experience and scope. “The environment at CEA differs enormously from MIT because it is a national lab and because lab structure and graduate education in France is markedly different than at MIT,” Nolan continues. “At CEA, she had the opportunity to present research to distinguished international colleagues.”

These impactful partnerships unite faculty teams behind common goals to tackle worldwide challenges, helping to develop solutions that would not be possible without international collaboration. 2017 GSF winner Emilio Bizzi, professor emeritus of brain and cognitive sciences and emeritus investigator at the McGovern Institute, articulated the advantage of combining these individual skills within a high-level team. “The collaboration among researchers was valuable in sharing knowledge, experience, skills and techniques … as well as offering the probability of future development of systems to aid in rehabilitation of patients suffering TBI.”

The research opportunities that grow from these seed funds often lead to published papers and additional funding leveraged from early results. The next call for proposals will be in mid-May.

MISTI creates applied international learning opportunities for MIT students that increase their ability to understand and address real-world problems. MISTI collaborates with partners at MIT and beyond, serving as a vital nexus of international activity and bolstering the Institute’s research mission by promoting collaborations between MIT faculty members and their counterparts abroad.