Search

The application of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering to medicine is gaining momentum as the mutual benefits of this collaboration become increasingly obvious. This theme issue is intended to highlight the trend in the case of mathematics. Specifically, the scope of this theme issue is to give a general view of the current research in the application of mathematical methods to medicine, as well as to show how mathematics can help in such important aspects as understanding, prediction, treatment and data processing. To this end, three representative specialties have been selected: neuroscience, cardiology and pathology. Concerning the topics, the 12 research papers and one review included in this issue cover biofluids, cardiac and virus dynamics, computational neuroscience, functional magnetic resonance imaging data processing, neural networks, optimization of treatment strategies, time-series analysis and tumour growth. In conclusion, this theme issue contains a collection of fine contributions at the intersection of mathematics and medicine, not as an exercise in applied mathematics but as a multidisciplinary research effort that interests both communities and our society in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Face-to-face interaction is core to human sociality and its evolution, and provides the environment in which most of human communication occurs. Research into the full complexities that define face-to-face interaction requires a multi-disciplinary, multi-level approach, illuminating from different perspectives how we and other species interact. This special issue showcases a wide range of approaches, bringing together detailed studies of naturalistic social-interactional behaviour with larger scale analyses for generalization, and investigations of socially contextualized cognitive and neural processes that underpin the behaviour we observe. We suggest that this integrative approach will allow us to propel forwards the science of face-to-face interaction by leading us to new paradigms and novel, more ecologically grounded and comprehensive insights into how we interact with one another and with artificial agents, how differences in psychological profiles might affect interaction, and how the capacity to socially interact develops and has evolved in the human and other species. This theme issue makes a first step into this direction, with the aim to break down disciplinary boundaries and emphasizing the value of illuminating the many facets of face-to-face interaction. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Face2face: advancing the science of social interaction'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the uncovering cognitive similarities and differences, conservation and innovation. Topics discussed include evidence that characteristics frequently cited for cognitive indispensability of brains can be crossed off the list comes from basic streams of work, one functional, the other mechanistic; and the narrative revealed by recent work, ranging from plant biology to developmental genetics, highlights the value of neuroscience to understanding the evolution of cognition.

Researchers across cognitive, neuro- and computer sciences increasingly reference 'human-like' artificial intelligence and 'neuroAI'. However, the scope and use of the terms are often inconsistent. Contributed research ranges widely from mimicking behaviour, to testing machine learning methods as neurally plausible hypotheses at the cellular or functional levels, or solving engineering problems. However, it cannot be assumed nor expected that progress on one of these three goals will automatically translate to progress in others. Here, a simple rubric is proposed to clarify the scope of individual contributions, grounded in their commitments to human-like behaviour, neural plausibility or benchmark/engineering/computer science goals. This is clarified using examples of weak and strong neuroAI and human-like agents, and discussing the generative, corroborate and corrective ways in which the three dimensions interact with one another. The author maintains that future progress in artificial intelligence will need strong interactions across the disciplines, with iterative feedback loops and meticulous validity tests—leading to both known and yet-unknown advances that may span decades to come. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'New approaches to 3D vision'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The premise of this two-part theme issue is simple: the cognitive sciences should join the rest of the life sciences in how they approach the quarry within their research domain. Specifically, understanding how organisms on the lower branches of the phylogenetic tree become familiar with, value and exploit elements of an ecological niche while avoiding harm can be expected to aid understanding of how organisms that evolved later (including Homo sapiens) do the same or similar things. We call this approach basal cognition. In this introductory essay, we explain what the approach involves. Because no definition of cognition exists that reflects its biological basis, we advance a working definition that can be operationalized; introduce a behaviour-generating toolkit of capacities that comprise the function (e.g. sensing/perception, memory, valence, learning, decision making, communication), each element of which can be studied relatively independently; and identify a (necessarily incomplete) suite of common biophysical mechanisms found throughout the domains of life involved in implementing the toolkit. The articles in this collection illuminate different aspects of basal cognition across different forms of biological organization, from prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes--the focus of Part 1--to plants and finally to animals, without and with nervous systems, the focus of Part 2. By showcasing work in diverse, currently disconnected fields, we hope to sketch the outline of a new multidisciplinary approach for comprehending cognition, arguably the most fascinating and hard-tofathom evolved function on this planet. Doing so has the potential to shed light on problems in a wide variety of research domains, including microbiology, immunology, zoology, biophysics, botany, developmental biology, neurobiology/science, regenerative medicine, computational biology, artificial life and synthetic bioengineering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human thought and language have extraordinary expressive power because meaningful parts can be assembled into more complex semantic structures. This partly underlies our ability to compose meanings into endlessly novel configurations, and sets us apart from other species and current computing devices. Crucially, human behaviour, including language use and linguistic data, indicates that composing parts into complex structures does not threaten the existence of constituent parts as independent units in the system: parts and wholes exist simultaneously yet independently from one another in the mind and brain. This independence is evident in human behaviour, but it seems at odds with what is known about the brain's exquisite sensitivity to statistical patterns: everyday language use is productive and expressive precisely because it can go beyond statistical regularities. Formal theories in philosophy and linguistics explain this fact by assuming that language and thought are compositional: systems of representations that separate a variable (or role) from its values (fillers), such that the meaning of a complex expression is a function of the values assigned to the variables. The debate on whether and how compositional systems could be implemented in minds, brains and machines remains vigorous. However, it has not yet resulted in mechanistic models of semantic composition: how, then, are the constituents of thoughts and sentences put and held together? We review and discuss current efforts at understanding this problem, and we chart possible routes for future research. This article is part of the theme issue 'Towards mechanistic models of meaning composition'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many aspects of our perceptual experience are dominated by the fact that our two eyes point forward. Whilst the location of our eyes leaves the environment behind our head inaccessible to vision, co-ordinated use of our two eyes gives us direct access to the three-dimensional structure of the scene in front of us, through the mechanism of stereoscopic vision. Scientific understanding of the different brain regions involved in stereoscopic vision and threedimensional spatial cognition is changing rapidly, with consequent influences on fields as diverse as clinical practice in ophthalmology and the technology of virtual reality devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]