Richard Waters posted an update 3 weeks, 3 days ago
Recordings within the monkeys’ prefrontal cortices (PFCs) showed that some neurons showed sustained, elevated firing prices for the Title Loaded From File duration of the delay period and that the delay period firing rates depended systematically on the identity from the previously presented stimulus (Fuster 1973, Kubota et al. Subsequent research similarly observed stimulus-tuned delay period activity in the PFC (Barak et al. 2010, Brody et al. 2003, Funahashi et al. 1989, Goldman-Rakic 1995, Miller et al. 1996, Rainer et al. 1998, Rao et al. 1997, Romo et al. 1999, Shafi et al. 2007) as well as in different other components on the monkey brain: the temporal cortex (Bisley et al. 2004, Fuster Jervey 1981, Miller et al. 1993, Miyashita Chang 1988, Zaksas Pasternak 2006), parietal cortex (Gnadt Andersen 1988, Pesaran et al. 2002, Shafi et al. 2007), auditory cortex (Gottlieb et al. 1989), visual cortex (Super et al. 2001), somatosensory cortex (Zhou Fuster 1996), presupplementary motor region (Vergara et al. 2016), and medial premotor cortex (Hern dez et al. 2002). Current work has expanded to rodents, in which genetic tools allow neural activities to become manipulated also as recorded. That function has focused on rodent homologs with the primate brain locations involved in memory and movement preparing, which includes 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 inside the monkey, but fairly couple of cells are active for the entire delay period. Instead, most cells fire only in distinct time windows. These time windows tile the delay period, leading to observations of sequentially activated neurons (Harvey et al. 2012, MacDonald et al. 2011, Pastalkova et al. 2008), with all the sets of sequentially activated neurons indicating the upcoming behavioral outcome (Harvey et al. 2012). Supporting the part of elevated delay period firing in WM, this elevated firing is generally extinguished after the animal reports the remembered stimulus–at which point the details is no longer necessary for the memory job (Funahashi et al. 1989, Fuster Jervey 1981). In addition, the delay period activity is preferentially tuned to those stimulus capabilities which can be necessary for the subsequent behavior (Rainer et al. 1998, Rao et al. 1997), as opposed to these stimulus capabilities that happen to be significantly less task-relevant. To causally test the role of delay period activity in WM, recent perform has focused on single-trial analyses of neural activity and behavior and around the effect of optogenetic perturbations on the behavioral reports at the end of your delay period; as argued by Panzeri et al. (2017), these two procedures give strong tests of the causal role of neural activities in driving behavior. This work shows that, even more than trials in which the animal had to don’t forget the identical presented stimulus, variations within the delay period activities are predictive of subsequent differences within the behavior (Kopec et al. 2015, Li et al. 2016, Vergara et al. 2016, Wimmer et al. 2014). In addition, optogenetic perturbations for the neural activities in the course of the delay period result in predictable alterations within the subsequent behavior (Kopec et al. 2015, Li et al. 2016, Liu et al. 2014).