2016
DOI: 10.1038/nature17643
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robust neuronal dynamics in premotor cortex during motor planning

Abstract: Neural activity maintains representations that bridge past and future events, often over many seconds. Network models can produce persistent and ramping activity, but the positive feedback that is critical for these slow dynamics can cause sensitivity to perturbations. Here we use electrophysiology and optogenetic perturbations in mouse premotor cortex to probe robustness of persistent neural representations during motor planning. Preparatory activity is remarkably robust to large-scale unilateral silencing: d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

39
485
3
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 422 publications
(530 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
39
485
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Druckmann and Chklovskii (11) found that stable subspace models can incorporate neurobiological constraints such as sparse connectivity and that unsupervised Hebbian learning of recurrent connections can produce a stable coding subspace. Our empirical findings are in line with this theoretical framework and suggest that WM activity in PFC may be supported by such stablesubspace network mechanisms (27). Another direction for future circuit modeling is to compare empirical population data to activity in trained recurrent neural networks, which can lie at an intermediate stage of random and structured connectivity (10).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Druckmann and Chklovskii (11) found that stable subspace models can incorporate neurobiological constraints such as sparse connectivity and that unsupervised Hebbian learning of recurrent connections can produce a stable coding subspace. Our empirical findings are in line with this theoretical framework and suggest that WM activity in PFC may be supported by such stablesubspace network mechanisms (27). Another direction for future circuit modeling is to compare empirical population data to activity in trained recurrent neural networks, which can lie at an intermediate stage of random and structured connectivity (10).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…To causally test the role of delay period activity in WM, recent work has focused on single-trial analyses of neural activity and behavior and on the impact of optogenetic perturbations on the behavioral reports at the end of the delay period; as argued by Panzeri et al (2017), these two techniques provide powerful tests of the causal role of neural activities in driving behavior. This work shows that, even over trials in which the animal had to remember the same presented stimulus, differences in the delay period activities are predictive of subsequent differences in the behavior (Kopec et al 2015, Li et al 2016, Vergara et al 2016, Wimmer et al 2014). Moreover, optogenetic perturbations to the neural activities during the delay period cause predictable changes in the subsequent behavior (Kopec et al 2015, Li et al 2016, Liu et al 2014).…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Recent work has expanded to rodents, in which genetic tools allow neural activities to be manipulated as well as recorded. That work has focused on rodent homologs of the primate brain areas involved in memory and movement planning, including the parietal cortex, PFC, anterior lateral motor cortex (ALM), frontal orienting fields (FOF), and superior colliculus (SC) (Harvey et al 2012, Kopec et al 2015, Li et al 2016, Liu et al 2014). In rodents, elevated delay period firing is observed as in the monkey, but relatively few cells are active for the entire delay period.…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mouse is increasingly used as a model system for investigating the cortex, where complex sensory (Ferezou et al, 2007), motor (Li et al, 2016) and cognitive (Carandini and Churchland, 2013;Kim et al, 2016;Manita et al, 2015) functions have been shown to depend on interactions among cortical areas via inter-areal connections, as well as on dynamic control involving higher-order thalamic nuclei (Mease et al, 2016;Sherman, 2016). The highly interactive nature of cortical processing has motivated recent efforts to investigate the statistical properties of inter-areal networks and the development of large-scale models of the cortex that may provide insights into brain function in health and disease (Bullmore and Sporns, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%