Hubbry Logo
Bayesian approaches to brain functionBayesian approaches to brain functionMain
Open search
Bayesian approaches to brain function
Community hub
Bayesian approaches to brain function
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bayesian approaches to brain function
Bayesian approaches to brain function
Bayesian approaches to brain function
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Bayesian approaches to brain function investigate the capacity of the nervous system to operate in situations of uncertainty in a fashion that is close to the optimal prescribed by Bayesian statistics.[1][2] This term is used in behavioural sciences and neuroscience and studies associated with this term often strive to explain the brain's cognitive abilities based on statistical principles. It is frequently assumed that the nervous system maintains internal probabilistic models that are updated by neural processing of sensory information using methods approximating those of Bayesian probability.[3][4]

Origins

[edit]

This field of study has its historical roots in numerous disciplines including machine learning, experimental psychology and Bayesian statistics. As early as the 1860s, with the work of Hermann Helmholtz in experimental psychology, the brain's ability to extract perceptual information from sensory data was modeled in terms of probabilistic estimation.[5][6] The basic idea is that the nervous system needs to organize sensory data into an accurate internal model of the outside world.

Bayesian probability has been developed by many important contributors. Pierre-Simon Laplace, Thomas Bayes, Harold Jeffreys, Richard Cox and Edwin Jaynes developed mathematical techniques and procedures for treating probability as the degree of plausibility that could be assigned to a given supposition or hypothesis based on the available evidence.[7] In 1988 Edwin Jaynes presented a framework for using Bayesian Probability to model mental processes.[8] It was thus realized early on that the Bayesian statistical framework holds the potential to lead to insights into the function of the nervous system.

This idea was taken up in research on unsupervised learning, in particular the Analysis by Synthesis approach, branches of machine learning.[9][10] In 1983 Geoffrey Hinton and colleagues proposed the brain could be seen as a machine making decisions based on the uncertainties of the outside world.[11] During the 1990s researchers including Peter Dayan, Geoffrey Hinton and Richard Zemel proposed that the brain represents knowledge of the world in terms of probabilities and made specific proposals for tractable neural processes that could manifest such a Helmholtz Machine.[12][13][14]

Psychophysics

[edit]
See also: Bayesian inference in motor learning

A wide range of studies interpret the results of psychophysical experiments in light of Bayesian perceptual models. Many aspects of human perceptual and motor behavior can be modeled with Bayesian statistics. This approach, with its emphasis on behavioral outcomes as the ultimate expressions of neural information processing, is also known for modeling sensory and motor decisions using Bayesian decision theory. Examples are the work of Landy,[15][16] Jacobs,[17][18] Jordan, Knill,[19][20] Kording and Wolpert,[21][22] and Goldreich.[23][24][25]

Neural coding

[edit]

Many theoretical studies ask how the nervous system could implement Bayesian algorithms. Examples are the work of Pouget, Zemel, Deneve, Latham, Hinton and Dayan. George and Hawkins published a paper that establishes a model of cortical information processing called hierarchical temporal memory that is based on Bayesian network of Markov chains. They further map this mathematical model to the existing knowledge about the architecture of cortex and show how neurons could recognize patterns by hierarchical Bayesian inference.[26]

Electrophysiology

[edit]

A number of recent electrophysiological studies focus on the representation of probabilities in the nervous system. Examples are the work of Shadlen and Schultz.

Predictive coding

[edit]

Predictive coding is a neurobiologically plausible scheme for inferring the causes of sensory input based on minimizing prediction error.[27] These schemes are related formally to Kalman filtering and other Bayesian update schemes.

Free energy

[edit]
Main article: Free energy principle

During the 1990s some researchers such as Geoffrey Hinton and Karl Friston began examining the concept of free energy as a calculably tractable measure of the discrepancy between actual features of the world and representations of those features captured by neural network models.[28] A synthesis has been attempted recently[29] by Karl Friston, in which the Bayesian brain emerges from a general principle of free energy minimisation.[30] In this framework, both action and perception are seen as a consequence of suppressing free-energy, leading to perceptual[31] and active inference[32] and a more embodied (enactive) view of the Bayesian brain. Using variational Bayesian methods, it can be shown how internal models of the world are updated by sensory information to minimize free energy or the discrepancy between sensory input and predictions of that input. This can be cast (in neurobiologically plausible terms) as predictive coding or, more generally, Bayesian filtering.

According to Friston:[33]

"The free-energy considered here represents a bound on the surprise inherent in any exchange with the environment, under expectations encoded by its state or configuration. A system can minimise free energy by changing its configuration to change the way it samples the environment, or to change its expectations. These changes correspond to action and perception, respectively, and lead to an adaptive exchange with the environment that is characteristic of biological systems. This treatment implies that the system's state and structure encode an implicit and probabilistic model of the environment."[33]

This area of research was summarized in terms understandable by the layperson in a 2008 article in New Scientist that offered a unifying theory of brain function.[34] Friston makes the following claims about the explanatory power of the theory:

"This model of brain function can explain a wide range of anatomical and physiological aspects of brain systems; for example, the hierarchical deployment of cortical areas, recurrent architectures using forward and backward connections and functional asymmetries in these connections. In terms of synaptic physiology, it predicts associative plasticity and, for dynamic models, spike-timing-dependent plasticity. In terms of electrophysiology it accounts for classical and extra-classical receptive field effects and long-latency or endogenous components of evoked cortical responses. It predicts the attenuation of responses encoding prediction error with perceptual learning and explains many phenomena like repetition suppression, mismatch negativity and the P300 in electroencephalography. In psychophysical terms, it accounts for the behavioural correlates of these physiological phenomena, e.g., priming, and global precedence."[33]

"It is fairly easy to show that both perceptual inference and learning rest on a minimisation of free energy or suppression of prediction error."[33]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bayesian approaches to brain function

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Bayesian approaches to brain function propose that the operates as a probabilistic machine, using to integrate prior beliefs about the world with incoming sensory evidence to form updated posterior beliefs about environmental causes, thereby minimizing in , learning, and action. This framework, often termed the "Bayesian brain" hypothesis, views neural processes as approximating optimal , where the maintains generative models of its sensory inputs and refines them through errors to achieve efficient encoding and . Originating from Hermann von Helmholtz's 19th-century concept of "," the idea has evolved into a cornerstone of , influencing models of everything from to . The historical roots trace back to Helmholtz's 1867 treatise on physiological optics, where he described perception as an inferential process drawing on unconscious knowledge to resolve ambiguous sensory data; subsequent developments have formalized this probabilistically. Central to modern implementations is Karl Friston's free-energy principle, which frames brain function as minimizing variational free energy to perform approximate Bayesian inference. This unifies perception and action, with applications spanning cognitive domains such as visual illusions and neuropsychiatric disorders. As of 2025, ongoing research continues to refine these models, integrating dynamical systems and addressing debates on biological plausibility. These approaches predict neural responses and guide empirical testing through techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography.

Historical Development

Origins

The Bayesian approach to brain function has its foundational roots in the development of probability theory during the 18th and 19th centuries. Thomas Bayes introduced the core principle of updating probabilities based on evidence in his 1763 essay, posthumously published, which laid the groundwork for inferential reasoning under uncertainty. Pierre-Simon Laplace further advanced this framework in the early 19th century, expanding Bayesian methods into a comprehensive theory of probability that emphasized the integration of prior knowledge with observational data to form rational beliefs. These mathematical innovations provided the probabilistic tools later adapted to model cognitive processes as forms of inference. A key philosophical precursor emerged in the mid-19th century through Hermann von Helmholtz's work on perception. In his 1867 treatise on physiological optics, Helmholtz proposed that involves "unconscious inferences" drawn from ambiguous sensory data, where the relies on prior experiences to interpret images as representations of the external world. This idea prefigured Bayesian updating by suggesting that perception resolves uncertainty through a combination of sensory input and internalized expectations, influencing later interpretations of function as probabilistic inference. The early 20th century saw further influences from cybernetics and information theory, which framed biological systems, including the brain, as information-processing entities optimizing under noise and redundancy. Norbert Wiener's 1948 book Cybernetics described feedback mechanisms in animals and machines, highlighting adaptive control as essential for handling uncertain environments. Complementing this, Claude Shannon's 1948 formulation of information theory quantified uncertainty and efficient coding, providing metrics for how sensory systems might transmit reliable signals amid noise. Horace Barlow built on these ideas in 1961, arguing that neural transformations in sensory pathways aim to extract high-entropy signals from redundant inputs, aligning perceptual efficiency with informational optimality. The explicit application of Bayesian principles to brain function gained traction in cognitive science during the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in models of visual perception. Daniel Kersten developed early computational frameworks in the late 1980s and early 1990s, treating vision as statistical inference to handle ambiguities in natural images, as seen in his 1990 analysis of interpretability limits. This work culminated in the 1996 edited volume Perception as Bayesian Inference by David C. Knill and Whitman Richards, which synthesized experimental and computational evidence to argue that perceptual decisions embody Bayesian integration of priors and likelihoods. These contributions marked the transition from philosophical roots to formal models of the brain as a engine.

Key Theoretical Milestones

The rise of Bayesian approaches in understanding brain function gained significant momentum in the 1990s, with the introduction of the Helmholtz machine in 1995 by Peter Dayan, Geoffrey Hinton, and colleagues, which linked variational Bayesian methods to neural network learning. This was followed by Rajesh Rao and Dana Ballard's 1999 predictive coding framework, demonstrating how hierarchical neural architectures could implement Bayesian inference through top-down predictions and bottom-up error signals. Momentum continued into the 2000s, particularly through Karl Friston's formulation of as a hierarchical process. In his 2005 paper, Friston proposed that cortical responses could be modeled as minimizing prediction errors across neural hierarchies, where higher-level priors generate top-down predictions that are refined by bottom-up sensory evidence, thereby implementing approximate to infer hidden causes of sensory inputs. This framework bridged with neural architecture, positioning the as a system that actively predicts and updates its internal models to reduce free energy, a proxy for surprise or prediction error. The 2010s saw further theoretical expansions, with Sophie Deneve's 2008 work demonstrating how Bayesian inference could be realized through the temporal dynamics of neural populations, interpreting spike timing as evidence accumulation for probabilistic beliefs about stimuli. Complementing this, Nick Chater and colleagues' 2010 review highlighted the application of hierarchical Bayesian models to perceptual processes, showing how such models account for how the brain combines sensory data with contextual priors to form coherent perceptions, such as in object recognition or scene understanding. These developments solidified Bayesian principles as a unifying lens for diverse cognitive functions, emphasizing the brain's capacity for probabilistic reasoning across levels of processing. A pivotal event was the 2016 special issue in Connection Science dedicated to perspectives on human probabilistic inference and the "Bayesian brain," which compiled theoretical perspectives on how probabilistic inference underpins perception, decision-making, and learning, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue. In the 2020s, Bayesian brain theory has been formalized as a dynamic process of belief updating, as articulated in a 2025 review describing the as maintaining networks of probabilistic beliefs that evolve through of sensory evidence and priors, enabling adaptive in uncertain environments. This conceptualization integrates earlier ideas, such as those tracing back to Helmholtz's notion of , but emphasizes computational mechanisms for real-time . A key theoretical milestone involves linking Bayesian updating to in decision processes, as explored by Nathaniel Daw and colleagues in 2006, where agents update value estimates probabilistically to balance and exploitation in changing environments. Recent commentary in 2024 further underscores the expanding applications of Bayesian models in , highlighting novel integrations with to model complex behaviors like and pathology.

Foundational Concepts

Bayesian Inference in the Brain

Bayesian inference provides a normative framework for understanding how the brain processes sensory information under uncertainty, treating perception as the computation of probabilities over possible causes of observed data. At its core is Bayes' theorem, which updates beliefs about hypotheses given new evidence: P(H∣E)=P(E∣H)P(H)P(E)P(H|E) = \frac{P(E|H) P(H)}{P(E)} Here, HH represents a hypothesis, such as the state of the world (e.g., the location or identity of an object), while EE denotes the evidence, typically sensory input corrupted by noise. The term P(H)P(H) is the prior probability, encoding preexisting knowledge or expectations about likely world states derived from past experiences. P(E∣H)P(E|H) is the likelihood, quantifying how well the hypothesis explains the observed data, often modeled as the probability of sensory input given the true cause. The normalizing constant P(E)P(E), or marginal likelihood (evidence), integrates the likelihood over all possible hypotheses and ensures the posterior P(H∣E)P(H|E) sums to one; in neural terms, it reflects the overall sensory reliability and is computationally challenging, leading to approximations in brain models. This process allows the brain to invert generative models of the world, transforming ambiguous inputs into coherent percepts. The employs hierarchical priors to contextualize across multiple levels of , integrating low-level sensory expectations (e.g., smooth contours or Gaussian-distributed edge orientations) with high-level cognitive priors (e.g., or semantic knowledge). These multi-level priors enable efficient handling of complex scenes by propagating context downward, refining lower-level interpretations based on broader expectations. Early applications of Bayesian models to often assumed in sensory likelihoods to simplify computations, reflecting the additive noise in neural transduction processes and allowing closed-form solutions for posterior estimates under assumptions. This conceptualization positions the as an optimal Bayesian , minimizing by weighting sensory against priors in proportion to their reliability, thereby achieving near-optimal perceptual decisions in noisy environments. When exact posterior computation is intractable due to high dimensionality, the brain approximates it using variational methods, which minimize the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between an approximate distribution q(θ)q(\theta) and the true posterior p(θ∣E)p(\theta|E). The KL divergence measures the information loss in this approximation: KL(q(θ)∥p(θ∣E))=Eq(θ)[log⁡q(θ)p(θ∣E)]\text{KL}(q(\theta) \parallel p(\theta|E)) = \mathbb{E}_{q(\theta)} \left[ \log \frac{q(\theta)}{p(\theta|E)} \right] Minimizing this is equivalent to maximizing the (ELBO), L(q)=Eq[log⁡p(E∣θ)]−KL(q(θ)∥p(θ))\mathcal{L}(q) = \mathbb{E}_{q} [\log p(E|\theta)] - \text{KL}(q(\theta) \parallel p(\theta)), which lower-bounds the log evidence log⁡p(E)\log p(E) and balances data fit with prior adherence. In neural contexts, this variational approach facilitates scalable inference, approximating belief updates in real-time. Priors play a crucial role in resolving perceptual ambiguity, such as in illusory contours where fragmented inducers (e.g., line ends) are completed into unseen edges based on expectations of continuity and convexity, overriding sparse sensory data to form coherent shapes. This idea echoes Helmholtz's 19th-century notion of , where the brain implicitly applies priors to interpret sensations.

Probabilistic Representations

In Bayesian approaches to brain function, neural encoding of probabilistic information often occurs through population coding, where groups of neurons collectively represent s over stimuli or states. This encoding leverages the inherent variability in neural responses, such as Poisson-like fluctuations in spike rates, to naturally incorporate uncertainty into the representation. For instance, the stochastic nature of spike generation under Poisson statistics allows a population's activity to sample from an underlying , with the spread of responses reflecting the variance or precision of the encoded estimate. A key concept in these representations is the mean-variance observed in neural responses, where the balances the accuracy of the encoded (e.g., the of a stimulus feature) against the variability that signals levels. In probabilistic population codes, higher firing rates may correspond to greater , reducing effective variance, while broader distributions across the capture higher . Additionally, log-posterior encoding in firing rates facilitates efficient , as the additive properties of logarithms allow neural populations to represent and combine log-probabilities directly through summed or averaged spike rates, aligning with Bayesian updating principles. The seminal model of probabilistic population codes by Ma et al. (2006) demonstrates how such encodings enable near-optimal , interpreting neural variability as implicit probability distributions without requiring additional mechanisms for uncertainty representation. In this framework, the information carried by neural tuning curves is quantified using , which measures the precision of parameter estimation from responses: I(θ)=∫[∂log⁡p(r∣θ)∂θ]2p(r∣θ) drI(\theta) = \int \left[ \frac{\partial \log p(r|\theta)}{\partial \theta} \right]^2 p(r|\theta) \, dr Here, p(r∣θ)p(r|\theta) is the probability of response rr given parameter θ\theta, and the integral captures how response variability limits the code's efficiency. This model shows that Poisson-like noise in populations automatically yields posterior distributions that match in tasks. Neuromodulators, such as , contribute to these probabilistic representations by signaling expected , thereby modulating the gain or precision of population codes in response to contextual reliability of sensory cues. This mechanism helps the brain adjust the weighting of probabilistic information during encoding, enhancing adaptability without altering the core population dynamics.

Empirical Evidence

Psychophysical Studies

Psychophysical studies have provided compelling evidence for Bayesian integration in human sensory perception, demonstrating how the brain combines multiple cues weighted by their reliability to form percepts that approximate optimal . A seminal experiment by and Banks (2002) examined the integration of visual and haptic cues in estimating object size, where participants adjusted a rod's length using either vision, touch, or both. Results showed that when both cues were available, the combined estimate had lower variance than either individual cue, with weights inversely proportional to each cue's reliability—visual cues, being more precise, dominated over haptic cues. Illusion studies further illustrate Bayesian principles, particularly in multisensory scenarios where priors influence perceived location. In the ventriloquist effect, an auditory stimulus is perceived as originating from a spatially discrepant visual source, reflecting the integration of auditory and visual location estimates weighted by their uncertainties. This can be modeled using for Gaussian-distributed cues, where the combined mean estimate is given by μ=σv2μa+σa2μvσv2+σa2,\mu = \frac{\sigma_v^2 \mu_a + \sigma_a^2 \mu_v}{\sigma_v^2 + \sigma_a^2}, and the variance by σ2=11σv2+1σa2,\sigma^2 = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sigma_v^2} + \frac{1}{\sigma_a^2}}, with μa,σa2\mu_a, \sigma_a^2 and μv,σv2\mu_v, \sigma_v^2 denoting the auditory and visual means and variances, respectively; empirical data from such tasks confirm near-optimal performance. Studies from the extended these findings to under , reviewing how perceptual choices incorporate priors and likelihoods across sensory modalities. For instance, Vilares and Kording (2011) synthesized showing that humans adjust behaviors based on probabilistic models of environmental structure, including temporal domains where prediction errors drive adaptations in timing tasks—such as interval reproduction experiments where deviations from expected durations elicit corrective updates akin to . Recent psychophysical research continues to support Bayesian mechanisms in processing ambiguous scenes, where priors resolve perceptual uncertainty. In a 2023 study, participants viewing ambiguous visual figures (e.g., silhouettes prone to depth reversal) exhibited biases toward "viewing from above" interpretations, enhanced by simulated flight experiences that updated spatial priors; this aligns with by weighting recent sensory history against innate assumptions about scene geometry.

Electrophysiological Findings

Electrophysiological recordings provide direct evidence for Bayesian processes in the brain by demonstrating how neural activity encodes probabilistic information and updates beliefs in response to sensory inputs. In primary (V1) of awake monkeys, single-unit recordings revealed that neuronal populations exhibit probabilistic tuning curves, where spike rates represent distributions over stimulus features such as orientation, enabling efficient without additional neural machinery for normalization. This probabilistic population code aligns with observed Poisson-like variability in cortical responses, allowing linear combinations of population activity to approximate optimal Bayesian estimates. Theoretical models further support these findings by showing that integrate-and-fire neurons can perform through their membrane dynamics, integrating sensory evidence over time to compute log-posterior ratios for competing hypotheses. In such models, spiking activity reflects approximate Bayesian updates, with neurons acting as particle filters that sample from posterior distributions based on incoming spike trains. Local field potentials and event-related potentials captured via EEG offer additional signatures of Bayesian mechanisms, particularly through the mismatch negativity (MMN), an early auditory component elicited by deviant stimuli that violates learned regularities. The MMN amplitude scales with prediction error magnitude, consistent with hierarchical Bayesian models where it indexes the surprise or divergence between predicted and observed sensory inputs. Extensions of frameworks, originally developed for Bayesian estimation of evoked responses in EEG and , have been applied in studies from 2015 to 2020 to dissect hierarchical inference in multimodal data. These approaches reveal how prediction errors propagate across cortical layers, with EEG showing temporal dynamics of belief updates and fMRI providing spatial context for effective connectivity during probabilistic tasks. Analysis of spike trains often employs Poisson models to quantify how neural firing encodes uncertainty, where the likelihood of observing a spike count rr given an expected rate λ\lambda (reflecting sensory evidence) is given by: p(r∣λ)=λre−λr!p(r \mid \lambda) = \frac{\lambda^r e^{-\lambda}}{r!} This formulation allows decoding of posterior distributions from population activity, as demonstrated in V1 recordings where variability in spike counts directly informs Bayesian estimates of stimulus uncertainty. Recent advances in 2024 have integrated Bayesian connectivity models with resting-state fMRI to infer intrinsic brain states, showing how fluctuations align with probabilistic priors for ongoing inference. These models extend electrophysiological insights by linking spontaneous activity to hierarchical , paralleling behavioral from psychophysical paradigms in revealing adaptive handling. As of 2025, large-scale electrophysiological recordings in mice further demonstrate brain-wide representations of prior information during decision-making tasks, reinforcing the encoding of Bayesian priors across neural populations.

Neural Mechanisms

Neural Coding of Uncertainty

Neural populations encode uncertainty in Bayesian approaches by representing sensory information as probability distributions rather than point estimates, with neural variability serving as a key mechanism to signal the reliability of these representations. According to the Bayesian coding hypothesis, the brain's probabilistic representations arise naturally from the inherent noise in neural responses, allowing to be quantified and propagated through cortical circuits. This contrasts with deterministic coding schemes, where fixed response patterns convey only the of a stimulus without inherent measures of or spread. A primary mechanism for coding involves the variability observed in neural firing rates across trials, which directly corresponds to the posterior over stimuli in probabilistic population codes (PPCs). In these codes, populations of neurons collectively represent a full , where the tuning curve widths and response variances encode the and variance of the distribution, respectively. Population vector decoding methods, extended from classical approaches, can then extract these densities by integrating over the population activity, enabling downstream Bayesian computations such as cue integration. For instance, the variance of a stimulus estimate in such codes is approximated by the inverse of the sum of inverse response variances from contributing neurons: Var(s^)≈(∑i1σi2)−1,\mathrm{Var}(\hat{s}) \approx \left( \sum_i \frac{1}{\sigma_i^2} \right)^{-1}, where σi2\sigma_i^2 denotes the variance of the ii-th neuron's response to stimulus ss. This formulation ensures that more reliable (lower-variance) neurons contribute more to the overall estimate, aligning with optimal Bayesian inference. Seminal work by Beck et al. demonstrated how cortical circuits, particularly in areas like the lateral intraparietal area (LIP), perform approximate Bayesian inference using PPCs during decision-making tasks, where neural variability preserves and combines probabilistic information from upstream areas like middle temporal (MT). Electrophysiological findings from these regions show trial-to-trial fluctuations in spiking that correlate with behavioral uncertainty, supporting the role of variability as an explicit uncertainty signal. Additionally, the efficient coding hypothesis has been extended to Bayesian frameworks, positing that neural representations minimize expected coding costs—such as metabolic or informational overhead—under probabilistic priors, thereby optimizing the encoding of uncertainty to match environmental statistics. Gain modulation further refines this process by scaling neural responses according to precision weights, allowing dynamic adjustment of input reliability without altering tuning curves, as seen in attentional effects that enhance low-uncertainty signals. This mechanism differs fundamentally from deterministic coding by embedding uncertainty directly into the response amplitude, facilitating efficient precision-weighted averaging in downstream processing. A 2025 fMRI study further elucidated the neural representations of prior and likelihood uncertainties during scene recognition, showing distinct brain activity patterns for each component.

Hierarchical Processing

In Bayesian approaches to brain function, hierarchical processing refers to the multi-level integration of information across neural structures, where sensory inputs at lower levels combine with expectations from higher levels to form increasingly abstract representations. This architecture involves bottom-up transmission of sensory evidence, such as prediction errors from primary sensory areas, which propagate forward to update beliefs at successive layers. Concurrently, top-down priors descend from higher cognitive regions, providing contextual expectations that modulate lower-level processing and reduce uncertainty. Layered belief propagation facilitates this bidirectional flow, enabling the brain to approximate Bayesian inference by iteratively refining probabilistic estimates across the cortical hierarchy. A key concept in this framework is the use of , where priors at each level are learned from data rather than fixed, allowing the system to adapt generative models to environmental statistics. In the , these generative models encode hierarchical causal structures, simulating how hidden states at higher levels generate observable sensory data at lower levels, thereby supporting efficient . An early computational demonstration of this hierarchical structure was provided by Rao and Ballard in 1999, who modeled visual processing as a multi-layer network where each level infers latent causes from features. In such models, the posterior distribution at level kk given evidence EE is approximated as P(Hk∣E)∝P(E∣Hk)P(Hk∣Hk+1),P(H_k \mid E) \propto P(E \mid H_k) P(H_k \mid H_{k+1}), with precision weighting applied to balance the influence of likelihoods and priors based on their reliability. Cortical columns serve as modular units within this hierarchy, functioning as local Bayesian inference engines that integrate inputs from adjacent layers to compute probabilistic representations of features. Recent advances, such as the 2024 hierarchical Bayesian parcellation framework, have applied these principles to fuse task-based and resting-state fMRI data, revealing individualized cortical divisions that align with functional hierarchies.

Advanced Frameworks

Predictive Coding

Predictive coding provides a neural implementation of , positing that the brain operates as a hierarchical where higher cortical levels generate top-down predictions of sensory inputs based on internal generative models, while lower levels compute bottom-up prediction errors by comparing these predictions against incoming sensory data. These prediction errors signal discrepancies and are used to update higher-level models, thereby refining predictions and minimizing overall error through iterative Bayesian updating. This process enables efficient perceptual inference by prioritizing the explanation of sensory data under uncertainty. The mechanism of predictive coding, as formalized by Friston in 2005, frames perception as approximate that minimizes sensory surprise, quantified as the negative log probability of the observed sensory given the internal model, −log⁡P(sensory [data](/page/Data)∣model)-\log P(\text{sensory [data](/page/Data)} \mid \text{model}). In this scheme, top-down predictions descend through forward models to anticipate lower-level activity, and any residual mismatch is encoded as prediction error signals that ascend to revise priors at higher levels. This error minimization aligns with Bayesian principles by treating perception as posterior inference over hidden causes of sensation. Early computational evidence for came from simulations of the by Rao and Ballard in 1999, which showed how top-down predictions could explain extra-classical effects, such as surround suppression and end-stopping, by suppressing predictable features and enhancing responses to unexpected ones. In these models, prediction errors are modulated by precision estimates, reflecting the reliability of sensory signals; the weighted error is given by ϵ=Π(s−μ)\epsilon = \Pi (s - \mu), where Π\Pi denotes precision, ss is the sensory input, and μ\mu is the predicted mean. This precision weighting ensures that more reliable signals exert greater influence on belief updating, a core feature of Bayesian integration in noisy environments. Variants of , often termed predictive processing, have been extended to neuropsychiatric conditions; for instance, models propose that dysregulated precision weighting in leads to aberrant salience attribution, where neutral stimuli are overly weighted as errors, contributing to hallucinatory experiences.

Free Energy Principle

The posits that the , as a self-organizing , maintains its by minimizing variational free energy, which serves as an upper bound on surprise, defined as the negative of sensory data. This principle frames brain function within a Bayesian framework, where the brain approximates the posterior distribution over hidden causes of sensory inputs using a variational Q that minimizes free energy F. Mathematically, variational free energy is expressed as F=⟨−log⁡P(s∣y)⟩Q+KL[Q∥P],F = \left\langle -\log P(s|y) \right\rangle_Q + \mathrm{KL}[Q \parallel P], where the first term represents the expected (or negative log-likelihood) under Q, and the second term is the Kullback-Leibler divergence between Q and the prior P, ensuring Q remains close to the brain's . Minimizing F thus balances model fit with prior constraints, effectively performing approximate without exact posterior computation. This minimization enables the active avoidance of surprise, either through perceptual that updates internal beliefs to better predict sensory inputs or through actions that alter the environment to match predictions, thereby preserving the 's low-entropy steady states. The principle draws analogies to , where free energy minimization parallels the reduction of in physical systems, bounding and linking biological adaptation to physical laws. In this view, the resists thermodynamic decay by constraining sensory surprise, treating and learning as processes that optimize predictive models to evidence the 's own existence as a bounded . A key insight from Friston (2010) is the notion of a self-evidencing , where free energy minimization maximizes the for the 's of the world, positioning the not merely as an observer but as an agent that actively constitutes its sensory niche through . This applies to steady-state , where the sustains equilibrium by continuously updating beliefs to maintain predictable sensory flows, often via hierarchical that propagate predictions across scales. For belief updating, the principle derives on free energy, where changes in variational parameters μ (encoding beliefs) follow μ˙=−∂F∂μ=∂ln⁡p(y∣μ)∂μ−∂KL[Q(⋅∣μ)∥P(⋅)]∂μ,\dot{\mu} = -\frac{\partial F}{\partial \mu} = \frac{\partial \ln p(y|\mu)}{\partial \mu} - \frac{\partial \mathrm{KL}[Q(\cdot|\mu) \parallel P(\cdot)]}{\partial \mu}, effectively descending the free energy landscape to refine approximations of the posterior, with prediction errors driving adjustments in internal states. In the 2020s, extensions of the have incorporated whole-brain dynamics, modeling large-scale neural activity as coupled flows that minimize free energy across distributed systems, integrating deterministic trajectories with fluctuations to explain emergent symmetries and gradients in resting-state networks. These developments emphasize variational schemes for simulating brain-wide , revealing how global dynamics emerge from local free energy gradients to support adaptive .

Active Inference

Active inference extends Bayesian approaches to brain function by incorporating action and , positing that agents actively select policies to minimize expected free energy, thereby fulfilling generative priors such as homeostatic states. In this framework, the brain is modeled as a hierarchical that not only infers hidden causes of sensory but also plans actions to resolve and achieve preferred outcomes, treating and action as unified processes under free energy minimization. Central to active inference is the expected free energy G(π)G(\pi), which decomposes into two key terms: , reflecting epistemic value or the expected information gain from reducing about the environment, and , capturing pragmatic value or the alignment of outcomes with prior beliefs (e.g., maintaining ). Policies π\pi are selected to minimize this quantity, formalized as: π=arg⁡min⁡πG(π)\pi = \arg\min_{\pi} G(\pi) This selection enables softmax exploration, where actions balance exploitation of known rewards with epistemic to gather novel information, akin to curiosity-driven in biological systems. The model was formalized by Friston et al. in 2017, demonstrating how active inference generates policies for sequential decisions in uncertain environments. Applications include modeling saccadic eye movements as optimal experiments to test spatial beliefs, where gaze shifts minimize expected free energy by resolving ambiguities in visual scenes. Similarly, in tasks, active inference simulates and scene construction, with agents selecting actions that immediate utility against informational gains to navigate resource-scarce settings. Recent extensions apply active inference to social contexts, such as a 2024 study modeling in multi-agent cooperation, where agents infer others' intentions via Bayesian updates and select cooperative policies to predict and align with social outcomes, enhancing collective efficiency without explicit communication.

Applications and Critiques

Extensions to and Action

Bayesian approaches have been extended to by modeling the brain's optimization of trajectories under , incorporating prior knowledge about dynamics and sensory feedback. Seminal work proposed modular forward and inverse models, where inverse models compute motor commands to achieve desired outcomes by inverting forward predictions of sensory consequences, enabling efficient trajectory planning in the presence of noise. These models align with , as the brain combines probabilistic priors on limb dynamics with likelihoods from sensory errors to minimize variance in movement predictions. In reaching tasks, Kalman filtering provides a computational mechanism for real-time state estimation, recursively updating beliefs about arm position and velocity by fusing noisy visual and proprioceptive inputs with predictive models of motion. Experimental evidence from human subjects shows that such filtering accounts for adaptive corrections during goal-directed reaches, with optimal weighting of sensory cues based on their reliability. In higher cognition, Bayesian frameworks model processing and reasoning as probabilistic over structured representations, where priors reflect syntactic and semantic expectations updated by incoming . For instance, models treat sentence comprehension as hierarchical , predicting word sequences based on contextual priors to resolve ambiguities efficiently. Similarly, deductive and are framed as updating posterior beliefs over hypotheses given , challenging classical logic-based accounts by emphasizing uncertainty management. Reinforcement learning integrates Bayesian priors in partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs), allowing agents to maintain beliefs over hidden states while optimizing actions for long-term rewards, as seen in models of social decision-making where the brain infers others' intentions from partial observations. These POMDP-based approaches capture in uncertain environments, such as navigating social interactions or planning under incomplete information. A comprehensive overview synthesizes these extensions, detailing Bayesian models of and as instances of predictive processing where the brain minimizes surprise through action selection. In reinforcement learning contexts, value updating follows the for : V(s)=∑aπ(a∣s)[R(s,a)+γ∑s′P(s′∣s,a)V(s′)]V(s) = \sum_{a} \pi(a|s) \left[ R(s,a) + \gamma \sum_{s'} P(s'|s,a) V(s') \right] where V(s)V(s) is the value of state ss, π(a∣s)\pi(a|s) is the policy, R(s,a)R(s,a) is the reward, γ\gamma is the discount factor, and P(s′∣s,a)P(s'|s,a) is the transition probability, enabling Bayesian incorporation of priors over dynamics PP and rewards RR. Recent advancements include the EBRAINS Virtual Brain Inference tool, launched in August 2025, which applies and to model dynamics and advance personalized . Clinically, these principles inform therapies for autism spectrum disorder, particularly sensory integration interventions that train probabilistic weighting of priors to counteract over-reliance on sensory details, improving adaptive behaviors through targeted exposure and feedback protocols. A September 2025 review further elaborates on Bayesian accounts of aberrant prediction error signaling in , synthesizing two decades of research on delusions and hallucinations. Such applications demonstrate how Bayesian models guide personalized treatments by simulating altered inference mechanisms in neurodevelopmental conditions. Bayesian frameworks rooted in predictive coding, the free energy principle, and active inference have also inspired developments in artificial intelligence and machine learning. These brain-inspired models have motivated neuromorphic computing architectures that emulate prediction error minimization, enhanced reinforcement learning algorithms incorporating uncertainty estimation and active exploration, and generative models—such as variational autoencoders—that utilize variational inference to learn probabilistic representations of data. This interdisciplinary influence illustrates how Bayesian approaches to brain function contribute to designing more adaptive and biologically plausible computational systems.

Limitations and Recent Debates

One major limitation of Bayesian approaches to brain function is their computational intractability, particularly in real-time neural where exact requires intractable calculations over high-dimensional spaces. This challenge persists despite approximations like variational inference, as the brain's biological constraints—such as limited neural resources and millisecond-scale —make full probabilistic updates biologically implausible. Critics argue that these models often overlook how the might achieve efficient approximations without true Bayesian optimality, leading to questions about their mechanistic validity. The assumption of optimality in Bayesian brain models has also faced significant scrutiny, with detractors labeling it the "myth of the Bayesian brain" due to its portrayal as a near-universal explanatory framework despite lacking direct evidence of neural implementation. For instance, the hypothesis posits that the brain approximates ideal Bayesian inference to minimize prediction errors, but empirical data suggest deviations from optimality, such as in perceptual tasks where behavior aligns better with simple heuristics than probabilistic computations. A 2025 critique highlights that this optimality narrative functions more as a flexible metaphor than a testable biological mechanism, potentially hindering progress in alternative paradigms. Ongoing debates center on the over-reliance on Gaussian approximations in models like , which simplify posterior distributions but may fail to capture the non-Gaussian complexities of real neural signals and uncertainties. Additionally, the framework's lack of is a recurring concern, as post-hoc adjustments to priors and likelihoods can accommodate nearly any data, reducing its . A 2023 special issue in NeuroImage examined the standing of the Bayesian brain across subfields, revealing mixed empirical support and calls for more rigorous testing against non-Bayesian rivals. Recent formalizations, such as the 2025 Bayesian brain theory (BBT) proposal, attempt to address dynamic belief updating in neural computation but have been critiqued for remaining conceptually vague in specifying neural mechanisms. Empirical challenges from 2024 functional connectivity studies further underscore non-optimal , showing that Bayesian-like signatures in synaptic efficiency can arise from energy-minimizing rather than deliberate probabilistic reasoning. Alternatives like non-Bayesian models, which emphasize fast, ecologically tuned rules over full , have gained traction as more parsimonious explanations for behaviors like confidence reporting and . A September 2025 commentary on the "myth" critique offers constructive extensions, suggesting ways to refine or move beyond the Bayesian paradigm in . Overextensions of related concepts, such as the , risk conflating variational bounds with actual neural processes, amplifying debates on the framework's scope.

References

  1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00061
  2. https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~wpenny/publications/penny12.pdf
  3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.004
  4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005
  5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-025-05855-6
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452224007048
  7. https://bayes.wustl.edu/Manual/an.essay.pdf
  8. https://www.probabilityandfinance.com/pulskamp/Laplace/
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermann-helmholtz/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3480649/
  11. https://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~tai/microns_papers/Barlow-SensoryCommunication-1961.pdf
  12. https://kerstenlab.psych.umn.edu/publications/
  13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/perception-as-bayesian-inference/0442F577F5E4CD874FA6819978574C8F
  14. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1995.7.1.25
  15. https://doi.org/10.1162/089976699300016318
  16. https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/20/1/91/7282/Bayesian-Spiking-Neurons-I-Inference
  17. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcs.79
  18. https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ccos20/28/3
  19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.003
  20. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2024.1373633/full
  21. https://rahnevlab.gatech.edu/documents/papers/Rahnev(2019)BBS.pdf
  22. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00061/full
  23. https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~wpenny/drafts/spm-book/vb.pdf
  24. https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/pseries/Peg_files/Chapter9_SotiropoulosSeries.pdf
  25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.05.003
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/415429a
  27. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(04)00043-0
  28. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05965.x
  29. https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2791803
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/nn1790
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1388245708012686
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920300823
  33. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-024-01868-0
  34. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09226-1
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166223604003352
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627308008039
  37. http://papers.neurips.cc/paper/4489-efficient-coding-provides-a-direct-link-between-prior-and-likelihood-in-perceptual-bayesian-inference.pdf
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221010344
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004225009241
  40. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000211
  41. https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~rao/Rao-Ballard-NN-1999.pdf
  42. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003037
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12319954/
  44. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1622
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6169400/
  46. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2787
  47. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2632-072X/ac4bec
  48. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2017.0376
  49. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computational-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fncom.2016.00056/full
  50. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00401
  51. https://wolpertlab.neuroscience.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/papers/WolKaw98.pdf
  52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17628731/
  53. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000629
  54. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/44/17301
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661306001318
  56. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax8783
  57. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computational-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fncom.2010.00146/full
  58. https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/bayesian-models-of-the-mind/2410372D8183EFC4A41A6BB71B6252D1
  59. https://www.ebrains.eu/news-and-events/ebrains-researchers-launch-virtual-brain-inference-tool
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4911361/
  61. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.20250650
  62. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1476122/3/Pellicano_TiCS_autism_final%2520accepted.pdf
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8871280/
  64. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07870
  65. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01182.x
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392124412_The_myth_of_the_Bayesian_brain
  67. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006572
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40569419/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12479598/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810023000478
  71. https://elifesciences.org/articles/92595
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6258566/
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395538390_The_Myth_of_the_Bayesian_Brain_Commentary_and_Constructive_Extension_of_Madhur_Mangalam_2025
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.