IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1006716.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

State-aware detection of sensory stimuli in the cortex of the awake mouse

Author

Listed:
  • Audrey J Sederberg
  • Aurélie Pala
  • He J V Zheng
  • Biyu J He
  • Garrett B Stanley

Abstract

Cortical responses to sensory inputs vary across repeated presentations of identical stimuli, but how this trial-to-trial variability impacts detection of sensory inputs is not fully understood. Using multi-channel local field potential (LFP) recordings in primary somatosensory cortex (S1) of the awake mouse, we optimized a data-driven cortical state classifier to predict single-trial sensory-evoked responses, based on features of the spontaneous, ongoing LFP recorded across cortical layers. Our findings show that, by utilizing an ongoing prediction of the sensory response generated by this state classifier, an ideal observer improves overall detection accuracy and generates robust detection of sensory inputs across various states of ongoing cortical activity in the awake brain, which could have implications for variability in the performance of detection tasks across brain states.Author summary: Establishing the link between neural activity and behavior is a central goal of neuroscience. One context in which to examine this link is in a sensory detection task, in which an animal is trained to report the presence of a barely perceptible sensory stimulus. In such tasks, both sensory responses in the brain and behavioral responses are highly variable. A simple hypothesis, originating in signal detection theory, is that perceived inputs generate neural activity that cross some threshold for detection. According to this hypothesis, sensory response variability would predict behavioral variability, but previous studies have not born out this prediction. Further complicating the picture, sensory response variability is partially dependent on the ongoing state of cortical activity, and we wondered whether this could resolve the mismatch between response variability and behavioral variability. Here, we use a computational approach to study an adaptive observer that utilizes an ongoing prediction of sensory responsiveness to detect sensory inputs. This observer has higher overall accuracy than the standard ideal observer. Moreover, because of the adaptation, the observer breaks the direct link between neural and behavioral variability, which could resolve discrepancies arising in past studies. We suggest new experiments to test our theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Audrey J Sederberg & Aurélie Pala & He J V Zheng & Biyu J He & Garrett B Stanley, 2019. "State-aware detection of sensory stimuli in the cortex of the awake mouse," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-24, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006716
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006716
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006716
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006716&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006716?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Y. Kate Hong & Clay O. Lacefield & Chris C. Rodgers & Randy M. Bruno, 2018. "Sensation, movement and learning in the absence of barrel cortex," Nature, Nature, vol. 561(7724), pages 542-546, September.
    2. James F. A. Poulet & Carl C. H. Petersen, 2008. "Internal brain state regulates membrane potential synchrony in barrel cortex of behaving mice," Nature, Nature, vol. 454(7206), pages 881-885, August.
    3. Alexis T Baria & Brian Maniscalco & Biyu J He, 2017. "Initial-state-dependent, robust, transient neural dynamics encode conscious visual perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, November.
    4. Klaus Wimmer & Albert Compte & Alex Roxin & Diogo Peixoto & Alfonso Renart & Jaime de la Rocha, 2015. "Sensory integration dynamics in a hierarchical network explains choice probabilities in cortical area MT," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Biyu J He & John M Zempel, 2013. "Average Is Optimal: An Inverted-U Relationship between Trial-to-Trial Brain Activity and Behavioral Performance," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-14, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arun Parajuli & Diego Gutnisky & Nitin Tandon & Valentin Dragoi, 2023. "Endogenous fluctuations in cortical state selectively enhance different modes of sensory processing in human temporal lobe," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adrián Ponce-Alvarez & Biyu J He & Patric Hagmann & Gustavo Deco, 2015. "Task-Driven Activity Reduces the Cortical Activity Space of the Brain: Experiment and Whole-Brain Modeling," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Ashok Litwin-Kumar & Anne-Marie M Oswald & Nathaniel N Urban & Brent Doiron, 2011. "Balanced Synaptic Input Shapes the Correlation between Neural Spike Trains," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Kaushik J Lakshminarasimhan & Alexandre Pouget & Gregory C DeAngelis & Dora E Angelaki & Xaq Pitkow, 2018. "Inferring decoding strategies for multiple correlated neural populations," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-40, September.
    4. Simone Carlo Surace & Jean-Pascal Pfister, 2015. "A Statistical Model for In Vivo Neuronal Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, November.
    5. Andrew M. Clark & David C. Bradley, 2022. "A neural correlate of perceptual segmentation in macaque middle temporal cortical area," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Christopher Ebsch & Robert Rosenbaum, 2018. "Imbalanced amplification: A mechanism of amplification and suppression from local imbalance of excitation and inhibition in cortical circuits," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-28, March.
    7. Alexis T Baria & Brian Maniscalco & Biyu J He, 2017. "Initial-state-dependent, robust, transient neural dynamics encode conscious visual perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, November.
    8. Iris Reuveni & Sourav Ghosh & Edi Barkai, 2017. "Real Time Multiplicative Memory Amplification Mediated by Whole-Cell Scaling of Synaptic Response in Key Neurons," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-31, January.
    9. Yuki Bando & Michael Wenzel & Rafael Yuste, 2021. "Simultaneous two-photon imaging of action potentials and subthreshold inputs in vivo," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Sebastian Reinartz & Arash Fassihi & Maria Ravera & Luciano Paz & Francesca Pulecchi & Marco Gigante & Mathew E. Diamond, 2024. "Direct contribution of the sensory cortex to the judgment of stimulus duration," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Moritz Helias & Tom Tetzlaff & Markus Diesmann, 2014. "The Correlation Structure of Local Neuronal Networks Intrinsically Results from Recurrent Dynamics," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    12. Jia-Hou Poh & Mai-Anh T. Vu & Jessica K. Stanek & Abigail Hsiung & Tobias Egner & R. Alison Adcock, 2022. "Hippocampal convergence during anticipatory midbrain activation promotes subsequent memory formation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    13. Richard D Lange & Ankani Chattoraj & Jeffrey M Beck & Jacob L Yates & Ralf M Haefner, 2021. "A confirmation bias in perceptual decision-making due to hierarchical approximate inference," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-30, November.
    14. Cheng Ly & Brent Doiron, 2009. "Divisive Gain Modulation with Dynamic Stimuli in Integrate-and-Fire Neurons," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-12, April.
    15. Lloyd E. Russell & Mehmet Fişek & Zidan Yang & Lynn Pei Tan & Adam M. Packer & Henry W. P. Dalgleish & Selmaan N. Chettih & Christopher D. Harvey & Michael Häusser, 2024. "The influence of cortical activity on perception depends on behavioral state and sensory context," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Allen P. F. Chen & Lu Chen & Kaiyo W. Shi & Eileen Cheng & Shaoyu Ge & Qiaojie Xiong, 2023. "Nigrostriatal dopamine modulates the striatal-amygdala pathway in auditory fear conditioning," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Moritz Helias & Moritz Deger & Stefan Rotter & Markus Diesmann, 2010. "Instantaneous Non-Linear Processing by Pulse-Coupled Threshold Units," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-10, September.
    18. Christian Donner & Klaus Obermayer & Hideaki Shimazaki, 2017. "Approximate Inference for Time-Varying Interactions and Macroscopic Dynamics of Neural Populations," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-27, January.
    19. Lluís Hernández-Navarro & Ainhoa Hermoso-Mendizabal & Daniel Duque & Jaime de la Rocha & Alexandre Hyafil, 2021. "Proactive and reactive accumulation-to-bound processes compete during perceptual decisions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006716. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.