Representation of an abstract perceptual decision in macaque superior colliculus.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
Journal of Neurophysiology (Impact Factor: 3.3). 06/2004; 91(5):2281-96. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00872.2003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We recorded from neurons in the intermediate and deep layers of the superior colliculus (SC) while monkeys performed a novel direction discrimination task. In contrast to the task we used previously, the new version required the monkey to dissociate perceptual judgments from preparation to execute specific operant saccades. The monkey discriminated between 2 opposed directions of motion in a random-dot motion stimulus and was required to maintain the decision in memory throughout a delay period before the target of the required operant saccade was revealed. We hypothesized that perceptual decisions made in this paradigm would be represented in an "abstract" or "categorical" form within the brain, probably in the frontal cortex, and that decision-related neural activity would be eliminated from spatially organized preoculomotor structures such as the SC. To our surprise, however, a small population of neurons in the intermediate and deep layers of the SC fired in a choice-specific manner early in the trial well before the monkey could plan the operant saccade. Furthermore, the representation of the decision during the delay period appeared to be spatial: the active region in the SC map corresponded to the region of space toward which the perceptually discriminated stimulus motion flowed. Electrical microstimulation experiments suggested that these decision-related SC signals were not merely related to covert saccade planning. We conclude that monkeys may employ, in part, a spatially referenced mnemonic strategy for representing perceptual decisions, even when an abstract, categorical representation might appear more likely a priori.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A fundamental goal of cognitive neuroscience is to understand how brain activity generates complex mental states and behaviors. While the responses of neurons are found to predict or correlate with behavioral responses in a cognitive task, the use of electrical microstimulation raises the possibility to augment such correlational findings with direct evidence for causal relationships. Although microstimulation has been used for many years as a tool for mapping sensory and motor function, its role in learning, memory and decision-making has emerged only recently. Focal microstimulation of higher cortical areas can produce complex mental states and sequences of action. However, the relationship between the locus of stimulation and the percepts or actions evoked is often stereotyped and inflexible. The challenge is to develop stimulation systems that do not have a fixed output but can flexibly contribute to complex cognitive and behavioral tasks. To this end, we discuss how microstimulation has been instrumental in manipulating a wide spectrum of cognitive functions including working memory, perceptual decisions and executive control by enhancing attention, re-ordering temporal sequence of saccades, improving associative learning or cognitive performance. Stimulation in prefrontal, parietal and sensory cortex may establish causal effects on decision-making, while microstimulation of inferotemporal cortex or caudate nucleus enhances associative learning. Building cognitive prosthetics based on the insights gleaned from such studies may depend on the development of multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) devices that allow subjects to control stimulation with their own thoughts in a closed-loop system.
    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 01/2014; · 10.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study of perceptual decision-making offers insight into how the brain uses complex, sometimes ambiguous information to guide actions. Understanding the underlying processes and their neural bases requires that one pair recordings and manipulations of neural activity with rigorous psychophysics. Though this research has been traditionally performed in primates, it seems increasingly promising to pursue it at least partly in mice and rats. However, rigorous psychophysical methods are not yet as developed for these rodents as they are for primates. Here we give a brief overview of the sensory capabilities of rodents and of their cortical areas devoted to sensation and decision. We then review methods of psychophysics, focusing on the technical issues that arise in their implementation in rodents. These methods represent a rich set of challenges and opportunities.
    Nature Neuroscience 06/2013; 16(7):824-831. · 15.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Whether allocation of visuospatial attention can be divorced from saccade preparation has been the subject of intense research efforts. A variant of the visual search paradigm, in which a feature singleton indicates that the correct saccade should be directed to it (prosaccade) or to the opposite distractor (antisaccade), has been influential in addressing this core topic. We performed a causal assessment of this controversy by delivering an air puff to one eye to invoke the trigeminal blink reflex as monkeys performed this visual search task. Blinks effectively remove saccadic inhibition and prematurely trigger impending saccades in reaction time tasks, thus providing a behavioral readout of the premotor plan. We found that saccades accompanied blinks during the initial allocation of attention epoch and that these movements were directed to the singleton for both prosaccade and antisaccade trials. Blinks evoked at later times were accompanied with saccades to the correct end point location: the singleton on prosaccade trials and the opposite distractor on antisaccade trials. These results provide support for concurrent encoding of visuospatial attention and saccade preparation during visual search behavior.
    Journal of Neuroscience 06/2013; 33(24):10057-65. · 6.91 Impact Factor