Neuroscience seminars

Using a combination of in vivo imaging of neuronal circuit functional and structural dynamics, we have investigated the mechanisms by which patterned neural activity and sensory experience alter connectivity in the developing brain. We have identified, in addition to the long-hypothesized Hebbian structural plasticity mechanisms, a kind of plasticity induced by the absence of correlated firing that we dubbed “Stentian plasticity”. In the talk I will discuss the phenomenology and some mechanistic insights regarding Stentian mechanisms in brain development. Further, I will show how glia may have a key role in circuit remodeling during development. These studies have led us to an appreciation of the importance of neuron-glia interactions in early development and the ability of patterned activity to guide circuit wiring.

Many flexible behaviors are thought to rely on internal representations of an animal’s spatial relationship to its environment and of the consequences of its actions in that environment. While such representations—e.g. of head direction and value—have been extensively studied, how they are combined to guide behavior is not well understood. I will discuss how we are exploring these questions using a classical visual learning paradigm for the fly. I’ll begin by describing a simple policy that, when tethered to an internal representation of heading, captures structured behavioral variability in this task. I’ll describe how ambiguities in the fly’s visual surroundings affect its perception and, when coupled to this policy, manifest in predictable changes in behavior. Informed by newly-released connectomic data, I’ll then discuss how these computations might be carried out and combined within specific circuits in the fly’s central brain, and how perception and action might interact to shape individual differences in learning performance.

Converging evidence from fMRI and EEG shows that audtiory spatial attention engages the same fronto-parietal network associated with visuo-spatial attention. This network is distinct from an auditory-biased processing network that includes other frontal regions; this second network is can be recruited when observers extract rhythmic information from visual inputs. We recently used a dual-task paradigm to examine whether this "division of labor" between a visuo-spatial network and an auditory-rhythmic network can be observed in a working memory paradigm. We varied the sensory modality (visual vs. auditory) and information domain (spatial or rhythmic) that observers had to store in working memory, while also performing an intervening task. Behavior, pupilometry, and EEG results show a complex interaction across the working memory and intervening tasks, consistent with two cognitive control networks managing auditory and visual inputs based on the kind of information being processed.

In this talk series, addiction neuroscientists from across the world share their personal stories/experiences on the beauty of addiction neuroscience and how/why they have decided to invest their scientific life in this field. We hope that this talk series would encourage and support a new generation of young and passionate addiction neuroscientists in different countries to revolutionize the field of addiction medicine.

It has generally been presumed that sensory information encoded by a nervous system should be as accurate as its biological limitations allow. However, perhaps counter intuitively, accurate representations of sensory signals do not necessarily maximize the organism’s chances of survival. We show that neural codes that maximize reward expectation—and not accurate sensory representations—account for retinal responses in insects, and retinotopically-specific adaptive codes in humans. Thus, our results provide evidence that fitness-maximizing rules imposed by the environment are applied at the earliest stages of sensory processing.

Start of the talk will be 17:15h (CEST). This session is a double feature of the Cologne Theoretical Neuroscience Forum and the BCCN Berlin.

Human vision relies on rapid eye movements (saccades) 2-3 times every second to bring peripheral targets to central foveal vision for high resolution inspection. This rapid sampling of the world defines the perception-action cycle of natural vision and profoundly impacts our perception. Marmosets have similar visual processing and eye movements as humans, including a fovea that supports high-acuity central vision. Here, I present a novel approach developed in my laboratory for investigating the neural mechanisms of visual processing using naturalistic free viewing and simple target foraging paradigms. First, we establish that it is possible to map receptive fields in the marmoset with high precision in visual areas V1 and MT without constraints on fixation of the eyes. Instead, we use an off-line correction for eye position during foraging combined with high resolution eye tracking. This approach allows us to simultaneously map receptive fields, even at the precision of foveal V1 neurons, while also assessing the impact of eye movements on the visual information encoded. We find that the visual information encoded by neurons varies dramatically across the saccade to fixation cycle, with most information localized to brief post-saccadic transients. In a second study we examined if target selection prior to saccades can predictively influence how foveal visual information is subsequently processed in post-saccadic transients. Because every saccade brings a target to the fovea for detailed inspection, we hypothesized that predictive mechanisms might prime foveal populations to process the target. Using neural decoding from laminar arrays placed in foveal regions of area MT, we find that the direction of motion for a fixated target can be predictively read out from foveal activity even before its post-saccadic arrival. These findings highlight the dynamic and predictive nature of visual processing during eye movements and the utility of the marmoset as a model of active vision. Funding sources: NIH EY030998 to JM, Life Sciences Fellowship to JY

Among mammals, excellent color vision has evolved only in certain non-human primates. And yet, color is often assumed to be just a low-level stimulus feature with a modest role in encoding and recognizing objects. The rationale for this dogma is compelling: object recognition is excellent in grayscale images (consider black-and-white movies, where faces, places, objects, and story are readily apparent). In my talk I will discuss experiments in which we used color as a tool to uncover an organizational plan in inferior temporal cortex (parallel, multistage processing for places, faces, colors, and objects) and a visual-stimulus functional representation in prefrontal cortex (PFC). The discovery of an extensive network of color-biased domains within IT and PFC, regions implicated in high-level object vision and executive functions, compels a re-evaluation of the role of color in behavior. I will discuss behavioral studies prompted by the neurobiology that uncover a universal principle for color categorization across languages, the first systematic study of the color statistics of objects and a chromatic mechanism by which the brain may compute animacy, and a surprising paradoxical impact of memory on face color. Taken together, my talk will put forward the argument that color is not primarily for object recognition, but rather for the assessment of the likely behavioral relevance, or meaning, of the stuff we see.

Though the term has many definitions, computational neuroscience is mainly about applying mathematics to the study of the brain. The brain—a jumble of all different kinds of neurons interconnected in countless ways that somehow produce consciousness—has been described as “the most complex object in the known universe”. Physicists for centuries have turned to mathematics to properly explain some of the most seemingly simple processes in the universe—how objects fall, how water flows, how the planets move. Equations have proved crucial in these endeavors because they capture relationships and make precise predictions possible. How could we expect to understand the most complex object in the universe without turning to mathematics? — The answer is we can’t, and that is why I wrote this book. While I’ve been studying and working in the field for over a decade, most people I encounter have no idea what “computational neuroscience” is or that it even exists. Yet a desire to understand how the brain works is a common and very human interest. I wrote this book to let people in on the ways in which the brain will ultimately be understood: through mathematical and computational theories. — At the same time, I know that both mathematics and brain science are on their own intimidating topics to the average reader and may seem downright prohibitory when put together. That is why I’ve avoided (many) equations in the book and focused instead on the driving reasons why scientists have turned to mathematical modeling, what these models have taught us about the brain, and how some surprising interactions between biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and engineers over centuries have laid the groundwork for the future of neuroscience. — Each chapter of Models of the Mind covers a separate topic in neuroscience, starting from individual neurons themselves and building up to the different populations of neurons and brain regions that support memory, vision, movement and more. These chapters document the history of how mathematics has woven its way into biology and the exciting advances this collaboration has in store.

We have long known that rod and cone signals interact within the retina and can even contribute to color vision, but the extent of these influences has remained unclear. New results with more powerful methods of RNA expression profiling, specific cell labeling, and single-cell recording have provided greater clarity and are showing that rod and cone signals can mix at virtually every level of signal processing. These interactions influence the integration of retinal signals and make an important contribution to visual perception.

Over the last fifteen years, Simona Ginsburg and I developed an evolutionary approach for studying basic consciousness, suggesting that the evolution of learning drove the evolutionary transition to from non-conscious to conscious animals. I present the rationale underlying this thesis, which has led to the identification of a capacity that we call the evolutionary transition marker, which, when we find evidence of it, we have evidence that the major evolutionary transition in which we are interested has gone to completion. I then put forward our proposal that the evolutionary marker of basic consciousness is a complex form of associative learning that we call unlimited associative learning (UAL), and that the evolution of this capacity drove the transition to consciousness. I discuss the implications of this thesis for questions pertaining to the neural dynamics that constitute conscious, to its taxonomic distribution and to the ecological context in which it first emerged. I end by pointing to some of the ways in which the relationship between UAL and consciousness can be experimentally tested in humans and in non-human animals.

Biological neural networks can represent information in the collective action potential discharge of neurons, and store that information amongst the synaptic connections between the neurons that both comprise the network and govern its function. The strength and organization of synaptic connections adjust during learning, but many cognitive neural systems are multifunctional, making it unclear how continuous activity alternates between the transient and discrete cognitive functions like encoding current information and recollecting past information, without changing the connections amongst the neurons. This lecture will first summarize our investigations of the molecular and biochemical mechanisms that change synaptic function to persistently store spatial memory in the rodent hippocampus. I will then report on how entorhinal cortex-hippocampus circuit function changes during cognitive training that creates memory, as well as learning to learn in mice. I will then describe how the hippocampus system operates like a competitive winner-take-all network, that, based on the dominance of its current inputs, self organizes into either the encoding or recollection information processing modes. We find no evidence that distinct cells are dedicated to those two distinct functions, rather activation of the hippocampus information processing mode is controlled by a subset of dentate spike events within the network of learning-modified, entorhinal-hippocampus excitatory and inhibitory synapses.

The ability to simultaneously record the activity from tens to thousands and maybe even tens of thousands of neurons has allowed us to analyze the computational role of population activity as opposed to single neuron activity. Recent work on a variety of cortical areas suggests that neural function may be built on the activation of population-wide activity patterns, the neural modes, rather than on the independent modulation of individual neural activity. These neural modes, the dominant covariation patterns within the neural population, define a low dimensional neural manifold that captures most of the variance in the recorded neural activity. We refer to the time-dependent activation of the neural modes as their latent dynamics, and argue that latent cortical dynamics within the manifold are the fundamental and stable building blocks of neural population activity.

Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) and focal cortical dysplasia type II (FCDII) are caused by mutations in mTOR pathway genes leading to mTOR hyperactivity, focal malformations of cortical development (fMCD), and seizures in 80-90% of the patients. The current definitive treatments for epilepsy are surgical resection or treatment with everolimus, which inhibits mTOR activity (only approved for TSC). Because both options have severe limitations, there is a major need to better understand the mechanisms leading to seizures to improve life-long epilepsy treatment in TSC and FCDII. To investigate such mechanisms, we recently developed a murine model of fMCD-associated epilepsy that recapitulates the human TSC and FCDII disorders. fMCD are defined by the presence of misplaced, dysmorphic cortical neurons expressing hyperactive mTOR – for simplicity we will refer to these as “mutant” neurons. In our model and in human TSC tissue, we made a surprising finding that mutant neurons express HCN4 channels, which are not normally functionally expressed in cortical neurons, and increased levels of filamin A (FLNA). FLNA is an actin-crossing linking molecule that has also multiple binding partners inside cells. These data led us to ask several important questions: (1) As HCN4 channels are responsible for the pacemaking activity of the heart, can HCN4 channel expression lead to repetitive firing of mutant neurons resulting in seizures? (2) HCN4 is the most cAMP-sensitive of the four HCN isoforms. Does increase in cAMP lead to the firing of mutant neurons? (3) Does increase in FLNA contribute to neuronal alterations and seizures? (4) Is the abnormal HCN4 and FLNA expression in mutant neurons due to mTOR? These questions will be discussed and addressed in the lecture.