Dynamic causal models and autopoietic systems.

Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) and the theory of autopoietic systems are two important conceptual frameworks. In this review, we suggest that they can be combined to answer important questions about self-organising systems like the brain. DCM has been developed recently by the neuroimaging community to explain, using biophysical models, the non-invasive brain imaging data are caused by neural processes. It allows one to ask mechanistic questions about the implementation of cerebral processes. In DCM the parameters of biophysical models are estimated from measured data and the evidence for each model is evaluated. This enables one to test different functional hypotheses (i.e., models) for a given data set. Autopoiesis and related formal theories of biological systems as autonomous machines represent a body of concepts with many successful applications. However, autopoiesis has remained largely theoretical and has not penetrated the empiricism of cognitive neuroscience. In this review, we try to show the connections that exist between DCM and autopoiesis. In particular, we propose a simple modification to standard formulations of DCM that includes autonomous processes. The idea is to exploit the machinery of the system identification of DCMs in neuroimaging to test the face validity of the autopoietic theory applied to neural subsystems. We illustrate the theoretical concepts and their implications for interpreting electroencephalographic signals acquired during amygdala stimulation in an epileptic patient. The results suggest that DCM represents a relevant biophysical approach to brain functional organisation, with a potential that is yet to be fully evaluated.

[1]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Investigating the Functional Role of Callosal Connections with Dynamic Causal Models , 2005, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[2]  H. Maturana,et al.  Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. , 1974, Currents in modern biology.

[3]  Nikos K Logothetis,et al.  Interpreting the BOLD signal. , 2004, Annual review of physiology.

[4]  R. Guillery,et al.  On the actions that one nerve cell can have on another: distinguishing "drivers" from "modulators". , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  P. Nunez,et al.  Electric fields of the brain , 1981 .

[6]  J. C. Jimenez,et al.  Nonlinear local electrovascular coupling. I: A theoretical model , 2006, Human brain mapping.

[7]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modelling of evoked potentials: A reproducibility study , 2007, NeuroImage.

[8]  J Mingers,et al.  Self-Producing Systems—Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis , 1997 .

[9]  I. Tsuda Toward an interpretation of dynamic neural activity in terms of chaotic dynamical systems. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[10]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Magnetoencephalography-theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain , 1993 .

[11]  Ben H. Jansen,et al.  Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathematical model of coupled cortical columns , 1995, Biological Cybernetics.

[12]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modeling of evoked responses in EEG and MEG , 2006, NeuroImage.

[13]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Modelling event-related responses in the brain , 2005, NeuroImage.

[14]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Nonlinear Responses in fMRI: The Balloon Model, Volterra Kernels, and Other Hemodynamics , 2000, NeuroImage.

[15]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Modulation of excitatory synaptic coupling facilitates synchronization and complex dynamics in a biophysical model of neuronal dynamics. , 2003, Network.

[16]  K. Miller Understanding layer 4 of the cortical circuit: a model based on cat V1. , 2003, Cerebral cortex.

[17]  Robert Rosen,et al.  A relational theory of biological systems II , 1958 .

[18]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modelling , 2003, NeuroImage.

[19]  R. Buxton,et al.  Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: The balloon model , 1998, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[20]  E. Halgren,et al.  Dynamic Statistical Parametric Mapping Combining fMRI and MEG for High-Resolution Imaging of Cortical Activity , 2000, Neuron.

[21]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Mechanisms of evoked and induced responses in MEG/EEG , 2006, NeuroImage.

[22]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Biophysical models of fMRI responses , 2004, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[23]  Roman R Poznanski,et al.  fMRI models of dendritic and astrocytic networks. , 2006, Journal of integrative neuroscience.

[24]  F. Varela Principles of biological autonomy , 1979 .

[25]  J. Letelier,et al.  Autopoietic and (M,R) systems. , 2003, Journal of theoretical biology.

[26]  J. Lachaux,et al.  From autopoiesis to neurophenomenology: Francisco Varela's exploration of the biophysics of being. , 2003, Biological research.

[27]  S Noachtar,et al.  Localization of Epileptic Auras Induced on Stimulation by Subdural Electrodes , 1997, Epilepsia.

[28]  J Bancaud,et al.  Electrical stimulation with intracerebral electrodes to evoke seizures. , 1993, Advances in neurology.

[29]  H. Maturana,et al.  Autopoiesis and Cognition : The Realization of the Living (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Scie , 1980 .

[30]  C. Koch,et al.  Constraints on cortical and thalamic projections: the no-strong-loops hypothesis , 1998, Nature.

[31]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Comparing dynamic causal models , 2004, NeuroImage.

[32]  D. Attwell,et al.  The neural basis of functional brain imaging signals , 2002, Trends in Neurosciences.

[33]  Philippe Kahane,et al.  Invasive EEG in the definition of the seizure onset zone: depth electrodes , 2003 .

[34]  Naoki Miura,et al.  A state-space model of the hemodynamic approach: nonlinear filtering of BOLD signals , 2004, NeuroImage.

[35]  J. Parra,et al.  Electrical brain-stimulation paradigm for estimating the seizure onset site and the time to ictal transition in temporal lobe epilepsy , 2005, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[36]  S. Nelson,et al.  Homeostatic plasticity in the developing nervous system , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[37]  R Kawashima,et al.  Nonlinear local electrovascular coupling. II: From data to neuronal masses , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[38]  P. Kahane,et al.  Manifestations électrocliniques induites par la stimulation électrique intracérébrale par «chocs dans les épilepsies temporales , 1993, Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology.

[39]  L Tassi,et al.  [Electroclinical manifestations elicited by intracerebral electric stimulation "shocks" in temporal lobe epilepsy]. , 1993, Neurophysiologie clinique = Clinical neurophysiology.

[40]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Classical and Bayesian Inference in Neuroimaging: Theory , 2002, NeuroImage.

[41]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A neural mass model for MEG/EEG: coupling and neuronal dynamics , 2003, NeuroImage.

[42]  C. Wilson,et al.  Paired pulse suppression and facilitation in human epileptogenic hippocampal formation , 1998, Epilepsy Research.

[43]  Karl J. Friston Transients, Metastability, and Neuronal Dynamics , 1997, NeuroImage.

[44]  J. Mingers,et al.  Self-Producing Systems: Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis , 1996 .

[45]  Douglas C. Noll,et al.  Vascular dynamics and BOLD fMRI: CBF level effects and analysis considerations , 2006, NeuroImage.

[46]  Philippe Kahane,et al.  Preictal short-term plasticity induced by intracerebral 1 Hz stimulation , 2008, NeuroImage.

[47]  P. Robinson,et al.  Prediction of electroencephalographic spectra from neurophysiology. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[48]  C D Binnie,et al.  Responses to single pulse electrical stimulation identify epileptogenesis in the human brain in vivo. , 2002, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[49]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses in EEG/MEG with lead field parameterization , 2006, NeuroImage.