  It has long been believed that the brain is highly modular both in terms of
structure and function, although recent evidence has led some to question the
extent of both types of modularity. We used artificial neural networks to test
the hypothesis that structural modularity is sufficient to guarantee functional
specialization, and find that in general, this doesn't necessarily hold except
at extreme levels. We then systematically tested which features of the
environment and network do lead to the emergence of specialization. We used a
simple toy environment, task and network, allowing us precise control, and show
that in this setup, several distinct measures of specialization give
qualitatively similar results. We further find that (1) specialization can only
emerge in environments where features of that environment are meaningfully
separable, (2) specialization preferentially emerges when the network is
strongly resource-constrained, and (3) these findings are qualitatively similar
across different network architectures, but the quantitative relationships
depends on the architecture type. Finally, we show that functional
specialization varies dynamically across time, and demonstrate that these
dynamics depend on both the timing and bandwidth of information flow in the
network. We conclude that a static notion of specialization, based on
structural modularity, is likely too simple a framework for understanding
intelligence in situations of real-world complexity, from biology to
brain-inspired neuromorphic systems. We propose that thoroughly stress testing
candidate definitions of functional modularity in simplified scenarios before
extending to more complex data, network models and electrophysiological
recordings is likely to be a fruitful approach.
