Cell-type-specific encoding of prediction and reward in cortical microcircuits during novelty detection
Sharafeldin, A.; Choi, H.
Show abstract
Cortical circuits comprise diverse neuron types whose distinct activity patterns suggest specialized computational roles. Recent large-scale recordings reveal striking, cell-type-specific responses to novelty in cortex: excitatory neurons respond strongly to novel and unexpected stimuli, VIP interneurons respond more to novelty and omissions, while SST neurons are suppressed. What computational principles give rise to these dynamics? We introduce a normative model of a canonical cortical micro-circuit that jointly optimizes predictive coding, energy efficiency, and reinforcement learning under realistic connectivity constraints. By mapping algorithmic roles onto specific interneuron subtypes, the model reproduces absolute, contextual, and omission novelty effects observed experimentally. Critically, these emerge without hard-coded novelty detection and reveal a computational role for the VIP-SST disinhibitory motif in balancing representational capacity and metabolic cost. Mechanistic alternatives relying only on adaptation and Hebbian learning capture contextual but not absolute or omission effects. Our framework provides a unifying, falsifiable theory of how diverse cortical cell types implement coding principles underlying expectation and surprise.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Modulation of metastable ensemble dynamics explains the inverted-U relationship between tone discriminability and arousal in auditory cortex 97%
- A unified theory for the computational and mechanistic origins of grid cells 97%
- Metastable attractors explain the variable timing of stable behavioral action sequences 97%
"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.