Back

Trial-by-trial inter-areal interactions in visual cortex in the presence or absence of visual stimulation

Hidalgo, D.; Dellaferrera, G.; Xiao, W.; Papadopouli, M.; Smirnakis, S.; Kreiman, G.

2024-12-09 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.12.05.626981 bioRxiv
Show abstract

State-of-the-art computational models of vision largely focus on fitting trial-averaged spike counts to visual stimuli using overparameterized neural networks. However, a computational model of the visual cortex should predict the dynamic responses of neurons in single trials across different experimental conditions. In this study, we investigated trial-by-trial inter-areal interactions in the visual cortex by predicting neuronal activity in one area based on activity in another, distinguishing between stimulus-driven and non-stimulus-driven shared variability. We analyzed two datasets: calcium imaging from mouse V1 layers 2/3 and 4, and extracellular neurophysiological recordings from macaque V1 and V4. Our results show that neuronal activity can be predicted bidirectionally between L2/3 and L4 in mice, and between V1 and V4 in macaque monkeys, with the latter interaction exhibiting directional asymmetry. The predictability of neuronal responses varied with the type of visual stimulus, yet responses could also be predicted in the absence of visual stimulation. In mice, we observed a bimodal distribution of neurons, with some neurons primarily driven by visual inputs and others showing predictable activity during spontaneous activity despite lacking consistent visually evoked responses. Predictability also depended on intrinsic neuronal properties, receptive field overlap, and the relative timing of activity across areas. Our findings highlight the presence of both stimulus- and non-stimulus-related components in interactions between visual areas across diverse contexts and underscore the importance of non-visual shared variability between visual regions in both mice and macaques.

Matching journals

The top 3 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.