Dan Goodman<p>What's the right way to think about modularity in the brain? This devilish 😈 question is a big part of my research now, and it started with this paper with <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@GabrielBena" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>GabrielBena</span></a></span> finally published after the first preprint in 2021! </p><p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55188-9" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">nature.com/articles/s41467-024</span><span class="invisible">-55188-9</span></a></p><p>We know the brain is physically structured into distinct areas ("modules"?). We also know that some of these have specialised function. But is there a necessary connection between these two statements? What is the relationship - if any - between 'structural' and 'functional' modularity?</p><p>TLDR if you don't want to read the rest: there is no necessary relationship between the two, although when resources are tight, functional modularity is more likely to arise when there's structural modularity. We also found that functional modularity can change over time! Longer version follows.</p><p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/Neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/CompNeuro" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>CompNeuro</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ComputationalNeuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ComputationalNeuroscience</span></a></p>