Cited by 79Neural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural Networks and Applications

How deep is the brain? The shallow brain hypothesis

Open access
Suzuki, Mototaka, Pennartz, Cyriel M. A., Aru, Jaan·2023·Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Abstract

Deep learning and predictive coding architectures commonly assume that inference in neural networks is hierarchical. However, largely neglected in deep learning and predictive coding architectures is the neurobiological evidence that all hierarchical cortical areas, higher or lower, project to and receive signals directly from subcortical areas. Given these neuroanatomical facts, today's dominance of cortico-centric, hierarchical architectures in deep learning and predictive coding networks is highly questionable; such architectures are likely to be missing essential computational principles the brain uses. In this Perspective, we present the shallow brain hypothesis: hierarchical cortical processing is integrated with a massively parallel process to which subcortical areas substantially contribute. This shallow architecture exploits the computational capacity of cortical microcircuits and thalamo-cortical loops that are not included in typical hierarchical deep learning and predictive coding networks. We argue that the shallow brain architecture provides several critical benefits over deep hierarchical structures and a more complete depiction of how mammalian brains achieve fast and flexible computational capabilities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41583-023-00756-z

Cites

225 of 225 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the typical mammalian brain, recurrent loops between the subcortex and regions of the cortex are a vital and almost universal feature of processing.

    “In the typical mammalian brain, however, recurrent loops between the subcortex and regions of the cortex are a vital and almost universal feature of processing [85].”

    From Phenomenal interface theory: a model for basal consciousness (2025) · cites this paper as [85]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suzuki, M., Pennartz, C. M. A., & Aru, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Tartu (EE)
Corresponding author
Aru, Jaan
Venue
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Published
2023-10-27
Volume
24
Issue
12
Pages
778-791
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W4387996733
Cited by
79
References
224
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 4
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Brain Science Foundation
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 945539)
  • Eesti Teadusagentuur (PSG728)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
Keywords
thalamocortical loop, cortical microcircuits, predictive coding, deep learning architectures, neural network architecture, massively parallel computing
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Humans, Mammals, Neural Networks, Computer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review