Search

Active inference describes (Bayes-optimal) behaviour as being motivated by the minimisation of surprise of one's sensory observations, through the optimisation of a generative model (of the hidden causes of one's sensory data) in the brain. One of active inference's key appeals is its conceptualisation of precision as biasing neuronal communication and, thus, inference within generative models. The importance of precision in perceptual inference is evident—many studies have demonstrated the importance of ensuring precision estimates are correct for normal (healthy) sensation and perception. Here, we highlight the many roles precision plays in action, i.e., the key processes that rely on adequate estimates of precision, from decision making and action planning to the initiation and control of muscle movement itself. Thereby, we focus on the recent development of hierarchical, "mixed" models—generative models spanning multiple levels of discrete and continuous inference. These kinds of models open up new perspectives on the unified description of hierarchical computation, and its implementation, in action. Here, we highlight how these models reflect the many roles of precision in action—from planning to execution—and the associated pathologies if precision estimation goes wrong. We also discuss the potential biological implementation of the associated message passing, focusing on the role of neuromodulatory systems in mediating different kinds of precision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Active inference is a normative framework for explaining behaviour under the free energy principle—a theory of self-organisation originating in neuroscience. It specifies neuronal dynamics for state-estimation in terms of a descent on (variational) free energy—a measure of the fit between an internal (generative) model and sensory observations. The free energy gradient is a prediction error—plausibly encoded in the average membrane potentials of neuronal populations. Conversely, the expected probability of a state can be expressed in terms of neuronal firing rates. We show that this is consistent with current models of neuronal dynamics and establish face validity by synthesising plausible electrophysiological responses. We then show that these neuronal dynamics approximate natural gradient descent, a well-known optimisation algorithm from information geometry that follows the steepest descent of the objective in information space. We compare the information length of belief updating in both schemes, a measure of the distance travelled in information space that has a direct interpretation in terms of metabolic cost. We show that neural dynamics under active inference are metabolically efficient and suggest that neural representations in biological agents may evolve by approximating steepest descent in information space towards the point of optimal inference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the "planning as inference" paradigm has become central to the study of behaviour. The advance offered by this is the formalisation of motivation as a prior belief about "how I am going to act". This paper provides an overview of the factors that contribute to this prior. These are rooted in optimal experimental design, information theory, and statistical decision making. We unpack how these factors imply a functional architecture for motivated behaviour. This raises an important question: how can we put this architecture to work in the service of understanding observed neurobiological structure? To answer this question, we draw from established techniques in experimental studies of behaviour. Typically, these examine the influence of perturbations of the nervous system—which include pathological insults or optogenetic manipulations—to see their influence on behaviour. Here, we argue that the message passing that emerges from inferring what to do can be similarly perturbed. If a given perturbation elicits the same behaviours as a focal brain lesion, this provides a functional interpretation of empirical findings and an anatomical grounding for theoretical results. We highlight examples of this approach that influence different sorts of goal-directed behaviour, active learning, and decision making. Finally, we summarise their implications for the neuroanatomy of inferring what to do (and what not to). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]