IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1003415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Population Decoding in Rat Barrel Cortex: Optimizing the Linear Readout of Correlated Population Responses

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi Adibi
  • James S McDonald
  • Colin W G Clifford
  • Ehsan Arabzadeh

Abstract

Sensory information is encoded in the response of neuronal populations. How might this information be decoded by downstream neurons? Here we analyzed the responses of simultaneously recorded barrel cortex neurons to sinusoidal vibrations of varying amplitudes preceded by three adapting stimuli of 0, 6 and 12 µm in amplitude. Using the framework of signal detection theory, we quantified the performance of a linear decoder which sums the responses of neurons after applying an optimum set of weights. Optimum weights were found by the analytical solution that maximized the average signal-to-noise ratio based on Fisher linear discriminant analysis. This provided a biologically plausible decoder that took into account the neuronal variability, covariability, and signal correlations. The optimal decoder achieved consistent improvement in discrimination performance over simple pooling. Decorrelating neuronal responses by trial shuffling revealed that, unlike pooling, the performance of the optimal decoder was minimally affected by noise correlation. In the non-adapted state, noise correlation enhanced the performance of the optimal decoder for some populations. Under adaptation, however, noise correlation always degraded the performance of the optimal decoder. Nonetheless, sensory adaptation improved the performance of the optimal decoder mainly by increasing signal correlation more than noise correlation. Adaptation induced little systematic change in the relative direction of signal and noise. Thus, a decoder which was optimized under the non-adapted state generalized well across states of adaptation.Author Summary: In the natural environment, animals are constantly exposed to sensory stimulation. A key question in systems neuroscience is how attributes of a sensory stimulus can be “read out” from the activity of a population of brain cells. We chose to investigate this question in the whisker-mediated touch system of rats because of its well-established anatomy and exquisite functionality. The whisker system is one of the major channels through which rodents acquire sensory information about their surrounding environment. The response properties of brain cells dynamically adjust to the prevailing diet of sensory stimulation, a process termed sensory adaptation. Here, we applied a biologically plausible scheme whereby different brain cells contribute to sensory readout with different weights. We established the set of weights that provide the optimal readout under different states of adaptation. The results yield an upper bound for the efficiency of coding sensory information. We found that the ability to decode sensory information improves with adaptation. However, a readout mechanism that does not adjust to the state of adaptation can still perform remarkably well.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdi Adibi & James S McDonald & Colin W G Clifford & Ehsan Arabzadeh, 2014. "Population Decoding in Rat Barrel Cortex: Optimizing the Linear Readout of Correlated Population Responses," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003415
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003415
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003415&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003415?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. S. Nirenberg & S. M. Carcieri & A. L. Jacobs & P. E. Latham, 2001. "Retinal ganglion cells act largely as independent encoders," Nature, Nature, vol. 411(6838), pages 698-701, June.
    2. Jonathan W. Pillow & Jonathon Shlens & Liam Paninski & Alexander Sher & Alan M. Litke & E. J. Chichilnisky & Eero P. Simoncelli, 2008. "Spatio-temporal correlations and visual signalling in a complete neuronal population," Nature, Nature, vol. 454(7207), pages 995-999, August.
    3. Diego A. Gutnisky & Valentin Dragoi, 2008. "Adaptive coding of visual information in neural populations," Nature, Nature, vol. 452(7184), pages 220-224, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jean-Paul Noel & Edoardo Balzani & Cristina Savin & Dora E. Angelaki, 2024. "Context-invariant beliefs are supported by dynamic reconfiguration of single unit functional connectivity in prefrontal cortex of male macaques," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Eric G. Wu & Nora Brackbill & Colleen Rhoades & Alexandra Kling & Alex R. Gogliettino & Nishal P. Shah & Alexander Sher & Alan M. Litke & Eero P. Simoncelli & E. J. Chichilnisky, 2024. "Fixational eye movements enhance the precision of visual information transmitted by the primate retina," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Arno Onken & Valentin Dragoi & Klaus Obermayer, 2012. "A Maximum Entropy Test for Evaluating Higher-Order Correlations in Spike Counts," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-12, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Arne F Meyer & Jan-Philipp Diepenbrock & Max F K Happel & Frank W Ohl & Jörn Anemüller, 2014. "Discriminative Learning of Receptive Fields from Responses to Non-Gaussian Stimulus Ensembles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Jonathan Rubin & Nachum Ulanovsky & Israel Nelken & Naftali Tishby, 2016. "The Representation of Prediction Error in Auditory Cortex," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-28, August.
    7. Franklin Leong & Babak Rahmani & Demetri Psaltis & Christophe Moser & Diego Ghezzi, 2024. "An actor-model framework for visual sensory encoding," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Lucas Rudelt & Daniel González Marx & Michael Wibral & Viola Priesemann, 2021. "Embedding optimization reveals long-lasting history dependence in neural spiking activity," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-51, June.
    9. Wensheng Sun & Dennis L Barbour, 2017. "Rate, not selectivity, determines neuronal population coding accuracy in auditory cortex," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Pengcheng Zhou & Shawn D Burton & Adam C Snyder & Matthew A Smith & Nathaniel N Urban & Robert E Kass, 2015. "Establishing a Statistical Link between Network Oscillations and Neural Synchrony," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, October.
    11. Jingyang Zhou & Noah C Benson & Kendrick Kay & Jonathan Winawer, 2019. "Predicting neuronal dynamics with a delayed gain control model," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, November.
    12. Yasser Roudi & Sheila Nirenberg & Peter E Latham, 2009. "Pairwise Maximum Entropy Models for Studying Large Biological Systems: When They Can Work and When They Can't," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(5), pages 1-18, May.
    13. Shailaja Akella & Peter Ledochowitsch & Joshua H. Siegle & Hannah Belski & Daniel D. Denman & Michael A. Buice & Severine Durand & Christof Koch & Shawn R. Olsen & Xiaoxuan Jia, 2025. "Deciphering neuronal variability across states reveals dynamic sensory encoding," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-22, December.
    14. Richard Naud & Wulfram Gerstner, 2012. "Coding and Decoding with Adapting Neurons: A Population Approach to the Peri-Stimulus Time Histogram," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Fanfan Li & Dingwei Li & Chuanqing Wang & Guolei Liu & Rui Wang & Huihui Ren & Yingjie Tang & Yan Wang & Yitong Chen & Kun Liang & Qi Huang & Mohamad Sawan & Min Qiu & Hong Wang & Bowen Zhu, 2024. "An artificial visual neuron with multiplexed rate and time-to-first-spike coding," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Kenneth W. Latimer & David J. Freedman, 2023. "Low-dimensional encoding of decisions in parietal cortex reflects long-term training history," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, December.
    17. Braden A W Brinkman & Alison I Weber & Fred Rieke & Eric Shea-Brown, 2016. "How Do Efficient Coding Strategies Depend on Origins of Noise in Neural Circuits?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-34, October.
    18. Jason S Prentice & Olivier Marre & Mark L Ioffe & Adrianna R Loback & Gašper Tkačik & Michael J Berry II, 2016. "Error-Robust Modes of the Retinal Population Code," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-32, November.
    19. Yanyun Ren & Xiaobo Bu & Ming Wang & Yue Gong & Junjie Wang & Yuyang Yang & Guijun Li & Meng Zhang & Ye Zhou & Su-Ting Han, 2022. "Synaptic plasticity in self-powered artificial striate cortex for binocular orientation selectivity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Sunny Nigam & Russell Milton & Sorin Pojoga & Valentin Dragoi, 2023. "Adaptive coding across visual features during free-viewing and fixation conditions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, 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:pcbi00:1003415. 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.