Flexible control of mutual inhibition: A neural model of two-interval discrimination

Science

Volumn 307, Issue 5712, 2005, Pages 1121-1124

  Machens, Christian K ^a   Romo, Ranulfo ^b   Brody, Carlos D ^a  

^a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Cold Spring Harbor   (United States)

^b INSTITUTO DE FISIOLOGÍA CELULAR   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

DISCRIMINATION; MUTUAL INHIBITION; NEURAL MODELS; NEURONS;

NEURAL NETWORKS;

BIOLOGY;

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FRONTAL LOBE; INHIBITION KINETICS; MUTUAL INHIBITION; NERVE CELL; NERVE CELL NETWORK; NONHUMAN; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; TWO INTERVAL DISCRIMINATION; WORKING MEMORY;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; COGNITION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FRONTAL LOBE; MACACA; MATHEMATICS; MEMORY; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; NERVE NET; NEURAL INHIBITION; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); NEURONS; NEURONS, AFFERENT; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SOMATOSENSORY CORTEX;

EID: 13844317831     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1104171     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. E. K. Miller, J. D. Cohen, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 167 (2001).
2. H. S. Seung, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 13339 (1996).
3. H. S. Seung, D. D. Lee, B. Y. Reis, D. W. Tank, Neuron 26, 259 (2000).
4. X. J. Wang, Neuron 36, 955 (2002).
5. P. Miller, C. D. Brody, R. Romo, X. J. Wang, Cereb. Cortex 13, 1208 (2003).
6. A. A. Koulakov, S. Raghavachari, A. Kepecs, J. E. Lisman, Nature Neurosci. 5, 775 (2002).
7. Y. Loewenstein, H. Sompolinsky, Nature Neurosci. 6, 961 (2003).
8. E. Brown et al., Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos, in press.
9. S. L. Moody, S. P. Wise, G. di Pellegrino, D. Zipser, J. Neurosci. 18, 399 (1998).
10. E. Salinas, Neural Comput. 15, 1439 (2003).
11. A. Miyake, P. Shah, Eds., Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, ed. 1, 1999).
12. R. Romo, C. D. Brody, A. Hernandez, L. Lemus, Nature 399, 470 (1999).
13. E. Salinas, A. Hemandez, A. Zainos, R. Romo, J. Neurosci. 20, 5503 (2000).
14. A. Hernandez, A. Zainos, R. Romo, Neuron 33, 959 (2002).
15. R. Romo, A. Hemandez, A. Zainos, L. Lemus, C. D. Brody, Nature Neurosci. 5, 1217 (2002).
16. C. D. Brody, A. Hernandez, A. Zainos, R. Romo, Cereb. Cortex 13, 1196 (2003).
17. R. Romo, A. Hemandez, A. Zainos, Neuron 41, 165 (2004).
18. H. R. Wilson, Spikes, Decisions, Actions: Dynamic Foundations of Neuroscience (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, ed. 1, 1999).
19. H. D. Abarbanel, M. I. Rabinovich, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 11, 423 (2001).
20. P. Dayan, L. F. Abbott, Theoretical Neuroscience (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, ed. 1, 2001).
21. F. C. Hoppensteadt, An Introduction to the Mathematics of Neurons (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, ed. 2, 1997), pp. 155-158.
22. A. Hemandez, E. Salinas, R. Garcia, R. Romo, J. Neurosci. 17, 6391 (1997).
23. PFC neurons change the net sign of their stimulus dependence between stimuli f1 and f2. That is, the higher the stimulus value applied during the loading phase, the higher a PFC plus neuron's firing rate and the lower the minus neuron's firing rate. Yet the higher the stimulus value applied during comparison/ decision, the lower the PFC plus neuron's firing rate and the higher the PFC minus neuron's firing rate because higher f2s are more likely to lead to "no" decisions (fig. S9).
24. C. Brody, et al., in preparation.
25. D. Green, J. Swets, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (J. Wiley, New York. 1966).
26. R. Ratcliff, Psychol. Rev. 88, 552 (1981).
27. S. Link, The Wave Theory of Difference and Similarity (L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992).
28. R. Luce, Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1991).
29. X. J. Wang, Trends Neurosci. 24, 4S5 (2001).
30. C. D. Brody, R. Romo, A. Kepecs, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 13, 204 (2003).
31. S. T. Carmichael, J. L. Price, J. Comp. Neurol. 363, 642 (1995).
32. During the late part of the second stimulus, the firing of many S2 neurons becomes correlated with the monkey's decision (75), but this occurs after decision-correlated activity arises in the PFC, and thus cannot be causal to it. For simplicity, in the model we treat only the initial creation of decision-correlated activity in the PFC, before it has propagated back to area S2.
33. During the delay period and across trials using identical f1 stimuli, we calculated the noise correlation r between pairs of neurons (41). We found covariation between pairs of plus neurons [r- 0.13 ± 0.04 (SE), n = 32 pairs, and pairs of minus neurons (r = 0.08 ± 0.03, n = 17). But pairs where one neuron is plus and the other is minus were anticovaried (r = -0.08 ± 0.02, n = 58) (24).
34. Materials, methods, and documented computer code are available as supporting material on Science Online.
35. Good overlap in Fig. 3F requires high precision in the design of the i/o function shapes. This is a generic difficulty that all line attractors face (30, 42). We address this issue in the supporting online text by adapting the solution proposed by Koulakov et al. (6) to create a more robust model. Despite its greatly increased dimensionality, the more robust model can still be approximately described in terms of two variables (fig. S6), similar to the diagrams of Fig. 3.
36. The circuit of Fig. 3H is only one possible way to switch input signs. See (43) for another possibility.
37. U. Rudolph, H. Mohler, Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 44, 475 (2004).
38. A. Morishita, A. Yajima, Kybernetik 11, 154 (1972).
39. H. Seung, in The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks, M. Arbib, Ed. (MIV Press, Cambridge, MA, ed. 2, 2003), pp. 94-97.
40. M. Usher, J. L. McClelland, Psychol. Rev. 108, 550 (2001).
41. E. Zohary, M. N. Shadlen, W. T. Newsome, Nature 370, 140 (1994).
42. H. S. Seung, D. D. Lee, B. Y. Reis, D. W. Tank, J. Comput. Neurosci. 9, 171 (2000).
43. E. Salinas. J. Neurosci. 24, 1113 (2004).
44. R. Romo, E. Salinas, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 107 (2001).
45. R. Romo, E. Salinas, Nature Res. Neurosci. 4, 203 (2003).
46. C.K.M. and C.D.B, jointly developed and implemented the model and wrote the paper. R.R. conceived and carried out the experiments. This work was supported in part by a Swartz Foundation Fellowship to C.K.M.; an International Research Scholars Award from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and awards from Direccion General de Asuntos del Personal Academico-Universidad Autonoma National de Mexico and the Millennium Science Initiative-Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia to R.R.; and by a Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship, an award from the Redwood Neuroscience Institute, and NIH grant 1R01MH067991-01 to C.D.B. We thank J. D. Cohen, Z. F. Mainen, S. S. -H. Wang and A. M. Zador for comments on the manuscript, and J. J. Hopfield for discussion.