Session Kit: Module 11: Synapses and Circuit Logic
Everything needed to run Module 11 as a taught session: prep, timing, materials, misconceptions, rubric.
Generated from modules/module11.md. Edit the module page, not this file.
At a glance
| Duration | 4 hours |
| Capability target | Generate one synapse-to-motif interpretation with explicit evidence chain and one alternative explanation. |
| Learners leave with | Motif count table (observed vs expected vs z-score for each motif type) |
Before you walk in
- You can state the capability target in one sentence without reading it.
- You have one worked example you will narrate, including where you are unsure.
- Data access works — accounts, viewer, notebook — verified today, not last week.
- The rubric is visible to learners before they start, not after.
- You have decided what “uncertain” earns, and you will say so out loud.
Learners should arrive having covered:
- Modules 01-10
Materials
Run of show
| Time | Segment | Your note |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00-10:00 | Synapse cue recap | |
| 10:00-24:00 | Motif construction examples | |
| 24:00-38:00 | Learner motif analysis | |
| 38:00-50:00 | Alternative explanation challenge | |
| 50:00-60:00 | Competency check |
The activity
Scenario: You are analyzing a 200-neuron subgraph from the MICrONS dataset, spanning L2/3 and L4 of mouse visual cortex. Your goal: characterize the local circuit motif profile and identify any enriched patterns that suggest specific wiring rules.
- Enumerate all 2-node and 3-node motifs in the subgraph (use DotMotif or equivalent tool).
- Generate 1,000 degree-preserving random rewirings. Count motifs in each.
- Compute z-scores for each motif type.
- Identify the top 3 most enriched motifs. For each: draw the circuit diagram, propose a functional interpretation, and state one alternative explanation.
- Write a 1-page “circuit logic brief” summarizing the motif profile of this circuit.
What learners hand in
- Motif count table (observed vs expected vs z-score for each motif type)
- Circuit diagrams for top 3 enriched motifs
- 1-page circuit logic brief with interpretations and caveats
Misconceptions to target
These are the errors this session exists to prevent. Surface them in the debrief rather than pre-empting them in the lecture — a misconception a learner has voiced is far easier to correct than one they are holding silently.
- They may believe: Asymmetric morphology means a synapse is excitatory, rather than putatively excitatory under a stated assumption.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Reconstruction errors add symmetric noise to motif counts, when merges bias them toward denser motifs.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: A motif observed more often than expected is a functional building block.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Synapse count is a direct measure of connection strength rather than a proxy for it.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
Naming the norm
Every session is a chance to make one piece of the hidden curriculum explicit. Pick a moment where you would normally just do the professional thing, and say out loud why you are doing it — then ask whether anyone was taught that.
For this session, the candidate is whichever norm the activity most depends on: stating an assumption in the same sentence as the claim, recording the version a number came from, or saying “uncertain” and having it count as a real answer. See the hidden curriculum for the collected set and why naming them is a fairness intervention rather than etiquette.
Assessment
- Minimum pass: Clear motif description and evidence-backed claim for at least one motif.
- Strong performance: Thoughtful alternative hypotheses for each enriched motif. Multiple null models considered. Sensitivity to reconstruction quality discussed.
- Common failure to flag: Motif claim without error-awareness — treating every enriched pattern as a functional circuit without considering artifacts or spatial confounds.
Grade the reasoning, not the answer. A correct call with no evidence chain should not outscore a well-reasoned incorrect one — and saying so publicly changes behaviour within one session.
Exit prompt
Write one motif claim and one plausible confound.
If this session goes wrong
- Nobody talks in the debrief. You asked “any questions?” Ask instead: “Which cue would you drop first if the data got worse?”
- Everyone finishes early. They are pattern-matching, not judging. Give an ambiguous case where the answer is “uncertain” and see what happens.
- Nobody finishes. The scaffolding came off too fast. Work the next case together rather than pressing on.
- A learner is silently lost. The most likely cause is unstated vocabulary. Point them at the dictionary and check back.