title: The relative efficiency of modular and non-modular networks of different size.
abstract: Most biological networks are modular but previous work with small model networks has indicated that modularity does not necessarily lead to increased functional efficiency. Most biological networks are large, however, and here we examine the relative functional efficiency of modular and non-modular neural networks at a range of sizes. We conduct a detailed analysis of efficiency in networks of two size classes: 'small' and 'large', and a less detailed analysis across a range of network sizes. The former analysis reveals that while the modular network is less efficient than one of the two non-modular networks considered when networks are small, it is usually equally or more efficient than both non-modular networks when networks are large. The latter analysis shows that in networks of small to intermediate size, modular networks are much more efficient that non-modular networks of the same (low) connective density. If connective density must be kept low to reduce energy needs for example, this could promote modularity. We have shown how relative functionality/performance scales with network size, but the precise nature of evolutionary relationship between network size and prevalence of modularity will depend on the costs of connectivity.
authors: School of Biology, Newcastle University, Ridley Building 2, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK colin.tosh@newcastle.ac.uk.
authors: Colin R
authors: CR
authors: Tosh
authors: Centre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FL, UK Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FL, UK.
authors: Luke
authors: L
authors: McNally
mesh_terms: D005075:Biological Evolution; D003198:Computer Simulation; D009415:Nerve Net; D016571:Neural Networks, Computer
keywords: evolution; modularity; neural network; simulation
references: Cogn Sci. 2007 Jul 8;31(4):673-95
references: 21635312
references: Psychol Rev. 2006 Jul;113(3):628-47
references: 16802884
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 1989 Spring;1(2):171-86
references: 23968464
references: Artif Life. 2011 Winter;17(1):33-50
references: 21087148
references: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007 Nov;82(4):591-605
references: 17944619
references: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Mar;2(3):194-203
references: 11256080
references: Curr Biol. 2009 Aug 25;19(16):R700-13
references: 19706282
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Mar 22;280(1755):20122863
references: 23363632
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 16;106(24):9743-8
references: 19482938
references: Nat Rev Genet. 2007 Dec;8(12):921-31
references: 18007649
references: J Exp Biol. 2008 Jun;211(Pt 11):1792-804
references: 18490395
references: Biosystems. 2003 May;69(2-3):245-62
references: 12689732
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 May 13;105(19):6976-81
references: 18460604
references: Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008 Oct;9(10):770-80
references: 18797474
references: Nat Neurosci. 2003 Apr;6(4):428-32
references: 12627167
references: Brain. 1997 Apr;120 ( Pt 4):701-22
references: 9153131
references: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001 Aug;11(4):475-80
references: 11502395
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Sep 27;102(39):13773-8
references: 16174729