Instructors
R. Beer
Olin 512
beer@eecs.cwru.edu
368-2816
H. Chiel
Biology 304
hjc@po.cwru.edu
368-3846
Meeting
Tuesday and Thursday, 2:45-4:00, Olin 314
Grading
Discussion Leadership: 25%
Discussion Participation: 25%
Class Project/Paper: 50%
Discussion leadership will constitute one quarter of the grade. Each week, one paper (or a closely related group of short papers) will be presented by a member of the class or a pair of members. The responsibility of the presenter will be to provide a detailed presentation of the paper(s) and to lead a class discussion on its content and implications. You should plan to spend about an hour presenting the paper and an hour leading a discussion. Preparation for a presentation and discussion may take a considerable amount of time, and may involve not only carefully reading the paper to be presented, but also relevant background literature in order to understand the paper's perspective and technical content. A discussion leader is responsible for presenting key material from the papers, for raising issues to be discussed and keeping the discussion focused along productive lines. Papers will be analyzed along the following lines: (1) content - what are the motivations, approaches, and results of the work? (2) critical - what are the strengths and weaknesses of the work? (3) contextual - how does the work fit into the larger framework in which it is being carried out?
Active participation in the class discussions of other papers will constitute an additional one quarter of the grade. You will be expected to attend every class, to have carefully read every paper, and to contribute meaningfully to every discussion.
A term project or paper will constitute the remaining one-half of the grade. A project must address issues in Computational or Systems Neuroscience. There are two ways to satisfy this requirement: (1) write a critical review of a topic in the literature, or (2) do a computer project. Detailed proposals for either the critical review or the computer project will be due by March 3 by email to both instructors, and once approved by the instructors, the projects themselves will be due on April 26.
The first kind of project is a critical review of a topic in Computational or Systems Neuroscience. A critical review is an in-depth examination of a particular hypothesis or topic; it is not a "book review". Thus, you should initially define a focused hypothesis or topic area, and then select about 5 to 10 current papers from the research literature that directly address this hypothesis (or discuss this topic). You should critically evaluate the content of these papers (as opposed to merely reporting what the authors say). Critical reviews need not be more than 10 pages double-spaced.
The second kind of project, the computer project, could involve programming a model, or using a computer as a tool (e.g., Stella, Mathematica, Spice, Maple, ASYST, Insite, etc.) to analyze a model. The project would then consist of a listing of code (for a program), representative output, and a brief writeup (what was done, the rationale, results obtained, and discussion).
Papers
The following papers will be discussed. You will have until Jan. 18 to Email both instructors your first, second and third choices for a paper. We will use your rank ordering, as well as the time your Email is received, to assign papers. Therefore, it is possible that not everyone will be assigned one of the papers that they requested. You may also suggest a paper that is not on this list by sending us an electronic copy or providing a printed copy.
| Date | Discussion Leader | Paper | Slides |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. 13 | Prof. Chiel | Prinz, A.A., Bucher, D. and Marder, E. (2004). Similar network activity from disparate circuit parameters. Nature Neuroscience 7(12):1345-1352. | |
| Jan. 18, 20 | Valerie Snyder | Brezina, V., Orekhova, I.V. and Weiss, K.R. (2003). Neuromuscular modulation in Aplysia. I. Dynamic model. J. Neurophysiology 90:2592-2612. | Slides |
| Jan. 25, 27 | Seth Johnson | Tuci, E., Quinn, M. and Harvey, I. (2004). An evolutionary approach to the study of learning behavior using a robot-based model. Adaptive Behavior 10:201-222. | Slides |
| Feb. 1, 3 | Miranda Cullins | Ermentrout, B., Wang, J.W. Flores, J. and Gelperin, A. (2004). Model for transitions from waves to synchrony in the olfactory lobe of Limax. J. Computational Neuroscience 17:365-383. | Slides |
| Feb. 8, 10 | Nathan Wedge | Smith, T., Husbands, P., Philippides, A. and O'Shea, M. (2002). Neuronal plasticity and temporal adaptivity: GasNet robot control networks. Adaptive Behavior 10:161-184. | Slides |
| Feb. 15, 17 | George Takla | Bose, A., Manor, Y. and Nadim, F. (2004). The activity phase of postsynaptic neurons in a simplified rhythmic network. J. Computational Neuroscience 17:245-261. | |
| Feb. 22, 24 | James Vogel | Dayan, P. (2003). Pattern formation and cortical maps. J. Physiology Paris 97:475-489. | |
| March 1, 3 | Jennifer Talley | Dunn, N.A., Lockery, S.R., Pierce-Shimomura, J.T. and Conery, J.S. (2004). A neural network model of chemotaxis predicts functions of synaptic connections in the nemtode Caenorhabditis elegans. J. Computational Neuroscience 17:137-147. | |
| March 8, 10 | No Class | Spring Break | |
| March 15, 17 | Mikkel Fishman | Ghigliassa, R.M. and Holmes, P. (2004). Minimal models of bursting neurons: How multiple currents, conductances, and timescales affect bifurcation diagrams. SIAM J. Applied Dynamical Systems 3(4):636-670. | |
| March 22, 24 | Elizabeth Chiang | Zajac, F.E., Neptune, R.R., Kautz, S.A. (2003). Biomechanics and muscle coordination of human walking, Part II: Lessons from dynamical simulations and clinical applications. Gait and Posture 17:1-17. | Slides |
| March 29, 31 | Andrew Allen | Franceschini, N. (2004). Visual guidance based on optic flow: A biorobotic approach. J. Physiology Paris 98:281-292. | |
| April 5, 7 | Eldan Goldenberg | Koditschek, D.E., Full, R.J. and Muehler, M. (2004). Mechanical apsects of legged locomotion control. Arthropod Structure and Development 33:251-272. | |
| April 12, 14 | Daniel Pendergast | Ekeberg, O., Blumel, M. and Buschges, A. (2004). Dynamic simulation of insect walking. Arthropod Structure and Development 33:287-300. | |
| April 19, 21 | TBD | TBD |