An intriguing perspective about human emotion, the theory of constructed emotion considers emotions as generative models according to the Bayesian brain hypothesis. This theory brings fresh insight to existing findings, but its complexity renders it challenging to test experimentally. We argue that laboratory studies of pain could support the theory because although some may not consider pain to be a genuine emotion, the theory must at minimum be able to explain pain perception and its dysfunction in pathology. We review emerging evidence that bear on this question. We cover behavioral and neural laboratory findings, computational models, placebo hyperalgesia, and chronic pain. We conclude that there is substantial evidence for a predictive processing account of painful experience, paving the way for a better understanding of neuronal and computational mechanisms of other emotions.

The Free Energy Principle (FEP) is a normative computational framework for iterative reduction of prediction error and uncertainty through perception-intervention cycles that has been presented as a potential unifying theory of all brain functions (Friston, 2006). Any theory hoping to unify the brain sciences must be able to explain the mechanisms of decision-making, an important cognitive faculty, without the addition of independent, irreducible notions. This challenge has been accepted by several proponents of the FEP (Friston, 2010; Gershman, 2019). We evaluate attempts to reduce decision-making to the FEP, using Lucas\' (2005) meta-theory of the brain\'s contextual constraints as a guidepost. We find reductive variants of the FEP for decision-making unable to explain behavior in certain types of diagnostic, predictive, and multi-armed bandit tasks. We trace the shortcomings to the core theory\'s lack of an adequate notion of subjective preference or \"utility\", a concept central to decision-making and grounded in the brain\'s biological reality. We argue that any attempts to fully reduce utility to the FEP would require unrealistic assumptions, making the principle an unlikely candidate for unifying brain science. We suggest that researchers instead attempt to identify contexts in which either informational or independent reward constraints predominate, delimiting the FEP\'s area of applicability. To encourage this type of research, we propose a two-factor formal framework that can subsume any FEP model and allows experimenters to compare the contributions of informational versus reward constraints to behavior.

There is currently growing clinical concern regarding dysfunctional breathing disorder(s) (DBD), an umbrella term for a set of multidimensional clinical conditions that are characterized by altered breathing pattern associated with a variety of intermittent or chronic symptoms, notably dyspnea, in the absence or in excess of, organic disease. However, several aspects of DBD remain poorly understood and/or open to debate, especially the inconsistent relationship between the array of experienced symptoms and their supposedly underlying mechanisms. This may be partly due to a more general problem, i.e., the prevailing way we conceptualize symptoms. In the present article, after a brief review of the different aspects of DBD from the current perspective, I submit a call for considering DBD under the innovating perspective of the Bayesian brain hypothesis, i.e., a potent and novel model that fundamentally changes our views on symptom perception.

This special issue aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of the Bayesian Brain Hypothesis and its standing across neuroscience, cognitive science and the philosophy of cognitive science. By gathering cutting-edge research from leading experts, this issue seeks to showcase the latest advancements in our understanding of the Bayesian brain, as well as its potential implications for future research in perception, cognition, and motor control. A special focus to achieve this aim is adopted in this special issue, as it seeks to explore the relation between two seemingly incompatible frameworks for the understanding of cognitive structure and function: the Bayesian Brain Hypothesis and the Modularity Theory of the Mind. In assessing the compatibility between these theories, the contributors to this special issue open up new pathways of thinking and advance our understanding of cognitive processes.

Various imaging and electrophysiological studies in a number of different species and brain regions have revealed that neuronal dynamics associated with diverse behavioral patterns and cognitive tasks take on a sequence-like structure, even when encoding stationary concepts. These neuronal sequences are characterized by robust and reproducible spatiotemporal activation patterns. This suggests that the role of neuronal sequences may be much more fundamental for brain function than is commonly believed. Furthermore, the idea that the brain is not simply a passive observer but an active predictor of its sensory input, is supported by an enormous amount of evidence in fields as diverse as human ethology and physiology, besides neuroscience. Hence, a central aspect of this review is to illustrate how neuronal sequences can be understood as critical for probabilistic predictive information processing, and what dynamical principles can be used as generators of neuronal sequences. Moreover, since different lines of evidence from neuroscience and computational modeling suggest that the brain is organized in a functional hierarchy of time scales, we will also review how models based on sequence-generating principles can be embedded in such a hierarchy, to form a generative model for recognition and prediction of sensory input. We shortly introduce the Bayesian brain hypothesis as a prominent mathematical description of how online, i.e., fast, recognition, and predictions may be computed by the brain. Finally, we briefly discuss some recent advances in machine learning, where spatiotemporally structured methods (akin to neuronal sequences) and hierarchical networks have independently been developed for a wide range of tasks. We conclude that the investigation of specific dynamical and structural principles of sequential brain activity not only helps us understand how the brain processes information and generates predictions, but also informs us about neuroscientific principles potentially useful for designing more efficient artificial neuronal networks for machine learning tasks.

The global neuronal workspace (GNW) model has inspired over two decades of hypothesis-driven research on the neural basis of consciousness. However, recent studies have reported findings that are at odds with empirical predictions of the model. Further, the macro-anatomical focus of current GNW research has limited the specificity of predictions afforded by the model. In this paper we present a neurocomputational model - based on Active Inference - that captures central architectural elements of the GNW and is able to address these limitations. The resulting \'predictive global workspace\' casts neuronal dynamics as approximating Bayesian inference, allowing precise, testable predictions at both the behavioural and neural levels of description. We report simulations demonstrating the model\'s ability to reproduce: 1) the electrophysiological and behavioural results observed in previous studies of inattentional blindness; and 2) the previously introduced four-way taxonomy predicted by the GNW, which describes the relationship between consciousness, attention, and sensory signal strength. We then illustrate how our model can reconcile/explain (apparently) conflicting findings, extend the GNW taxonomy to include the influence of prior expectations, and inspire novel paradigms to test associated behavioural and neural predictions.

暂无摘要。

A recently popular framework in the cognitive sciences takes the human nervous system to be a hierarchically arranged Bayesian prediction machine. In this paper, we examine psychological trauma through the lens of this framework. We suggest that this can help us to understand the nature of trauma, and the different effects that different kinds of trauma can have. We end by exploring synergies between our approach and current theories of PTSD, and gesture toward future directions.