Behavioural report of single neuron stimulation in somatosensory cortex.

Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience and Humboldt University Berlin, Philippstrasse 13, House 6, 10115 Berlin, Germany.
Nature (Impact Factor: 42.35). 02/2008; 451(7174):65-8. DOI: 10.1038/nature06447
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Understanding how neural activity in sensory cortices relates to perception is a central theme of neuroscience. Action potentials of sensory cortical neurons can be strongly correlated to properties of sensory stimuli and reflect the subjective judgements of an individual about stimuli. Microstimulation experiments have established a direct link from sensory activity to behaviour, suggesting that small neuronal populations can influence sensory decisions. However, microstimulation does not allow identification and quantification of the stimulated cellular elements. The sensory impact of individual cortical neurons therefore remains unknown. Here we show that stimulation of single neurons in somatosensory cortex affects behavioural responses in a detection task. We trained rats to respond to microstimulation of barrel cortex at low current intensities. We then initiated short trains of action potentials in single neurons by juxtacellular stimulation. Animals responded significantly more often in single-cell stimulation trials than in catch trials without stimulation. Stimulation effects varied greatly between cells, and on average in 5% of trials a response was induced. Whereas stimulation of putative excitatory neurons led to weak biases towards responding, stimulation of putative inhibitory neurons led to more variable and stronger sensory effects. Reaction times for single-cell stimulation were long and variable. Our results demonstrate that single neuron activity can cause a change in the animal's detection behaviour, suggesting a much sparser cortical code for sensations than previously anticipated.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Two general classes of hypotheses for the role for gamma oscillations in sensation are those that predict gamma facilitates signal amplification through local synchronization of a distinct ensemble, and those that predict gamma modulates fine temporal relationships between neurons to represent information. Correlative evidence has been offered for and against these hypotheses. A recent study in which gamma was optogenetically entrained by driving fast-spiking interneurons showed enhanced sensory detection of harder-to-perceive stimuli, those that benefit most from attention, in agreement with the amplification hypotheses. These findings are supported by similar studies employing less specific optogenetic patterns or single neuron stimulation, but contrast with findings based on direct optogenetic stimulation of pyramidal neurons. Key next steps for this topic are described. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 03/2015; 31:254-263. DOI:10.1016/j.conb.2015.02.004 · 6.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advances in optical manipulation and observation of neural activity have set the stage for widespread implementation of closed-loop and activity-guided optical control of neural circuit dynamics. Closing the loop optogenetically (i.e., basing optogenetic stimulation on simultaneously observed dynamics in a principled way) is a powerful strategy for causal investigation of neural circuitry. In particular, observing and feeding back the effects of circuit interventions on physiologically relevant timescales is valuable for directly testing whether inferred models of dynamics, connectivity, and causation are accurate in vivo. Here we highlight technical and theoretical foundations as well as recent advances and opportunities in this area, and we review in detail the known caveats and limitations of optogenetic experimentation in the context of addressing these challenges with closed-loop optogenetic control in behaving animals. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Neuron 04/2015; 86(1):106-139. DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.03.034 · 15.98 Impact Factor
  • Source


Available from