Program Advisory Committee
Huda Akil, The Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5720, U.S.A.
Julia Lupp, Ernst Strüngmann Forum, Frankfurt, Germany
Daniel S. Pine, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-2670, U.S.A.
Klaas Enno Stephan, Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Wilfriedstrasse 6, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland
We start from the idea that computational psychiatry entails a reciprocal interaction between theoretical/computational neuroscience and psychiatry. We believe that these two disciplines are mutually informative and have much to learn from each other.
We define theoretical neuroscience as a formal description of mechanisms that underlie measured behavioral and brain processes. Computational approaches are a key component of the formalisms that underlie theoretical neuroscience. These formal descriptions can provide new perspectives about brain-behavior relationships and enable predictions that can be used to guide experimental design and interpretation. The hypothesis guiding this meeting is that these formal descriptions will prove to be useful in psychiatry, by informing classification, outcome-prediction, and therapeutics.
To discuss how new computational perspectives might be used to broaden our mechanistic understanding of psychiatric dysfunction and improve identification and treatment of psychiatric disorders.Top of page
A computational perspective asks different questions about patients than traditional clinical perspectives. These new questions have the potential to guide diagnosis and treatment by getting at fundamental psychological and neural processes, which may cut across symptomatic and diagnostic boundaries. These theoretical perspectives are based on the idea that brain mechanisms can be understood in terms of computational processes that function to transform information to produce behavior. In particular, this framework suggests that one of the major questions to ask is: “What is different about how this patient processes information about the world?”
For example, computational neuroscientists working on decision making have now garnered considerable evidence that suggests there are several action-selection systems that can drive choice behavior, each of which processes information about the world differently. These systems depend on different brain structures; damage to one structure can drive a patient to be more likely to use one or another system to make decisions. It is useful to consider how this computational perspective can guide clinical and translational studies in new directions unavailable without it.
However, these models and theories have not yet shaped critical thinking in psychiatry. It is our contention that part of the problem is a lack of communication between the computational groups and psychiatrists. Psychiatrists tend not to be trained in the computational perspective, and computational models tend not to be constructed to directly address the concerns of psychiatrists or patients. This Forum brings these two groups together to initiate a dialog geared at formulating how new computational breakthroughs can begin to have an impact on clinical practice.
Four discussion groups have been constructed to approach this goal. The foci of the discussion groups will cut across computational neuroscience and psychiatry lines. To support an evolving dialog, each group will consist of both experts from psychiatry and experts in computational, theoretical, and basic neuroscience.
Group 1: How can computational approaches help identify fundamental mechanisms underlying psychiatric disorders?
Group 2: Modeling Psychiatric Disorders Realistically: Incorporating complexity and heterogeneity into computational models
Group 3: How can computational approaches inform diagnostic nosology?
Group 4: Candidate examples for a computational approach to address practical problems in psychiatry