Back

Regional specialization manifests in the reliability of neural population codes

Guidera, J. A.; Gramling, D. P.; Comrie, A. E.; Joshi, A.; Denovellis, E. L.; Lee, K. H.; Zhou, J.; Thompson, P.; Hernandez, J.; Yorita, A.; Haque, R.; Kirst, C.; Frank, L. M.

2024-01-26 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.01.25.576941 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The brain has the remarkable ability to learn and guide the performance of complex tasks. Decades of lesion studies suggest that different brain regions perform specialized functions in support of complex behaviors1-3. Yet recent large-scale studies of neural activity reveal similar patterns of activity and encoding distributed widely throughout the brain4-6. How these distributed patterns of activity and encoding are compatible with regional specialization of brain function remains unclear. Two frontal brain regions, the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), are a paradigm of this conundrum. In the setting complex behaviors, the dmPFC is necessary for choosing optimal actions2,7,8, whereas the OFC is necessary for waiting for3,9 and learning from2,7,9-12 the outcomes of those actions. Yet both dmPFC and OFC encode both choice- and outcome-related quantities13-20. Here we show that while ensembles of neurons in the dmPFC and OFC of rats encode similar elements of a cognitive task with similar patterns of activity, the two regions differ in when that coding is consistent across trials ("reliable"). In line with the known critical functions of each region, dmPFC activity is more reliable when animals are making choices and less reliable preceding outcomes, whereas OFC activity shows the opposite pattern. Our findings identify the dynamic reliability of neural population codes as a mechanism whereby different brain regions may support distinct cognitive functions despite exhibiting similar patterns of activity and encoding similar quantities.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.