Which nodes in a brain network causally influence one another, and how do such interactions utilize the underlying structural connectivity? One of the fundamental goals of neuroscience is to pinpoint such causal relations. Conventionally, these relationships are established by manipulating a node while tracking changes in another node. A causal role is then assigned to the first node if this intervention led to a significant change in the state of the tracked node. In this presentation, I use a series of intuitive thought experiments to demonstrate the methodological shortcomings of the current ‘causation via manipulation’ framework. Namely, a node might causally influence another node, but how much and through which mechanistic interactions? Therefore, establishing a causal relationship, however reliable, does not provide the proper causal understanding of the system, because there often exists a wide range of causal influences that require to be adequately decomposed. To do so, I introduce a game-theoretical framework called Multi-perturbation Shapley value Analysis (MSA). Then, I present our work in which we employed MSA on an Echo State Network (ESN), quantified how much its nodes were influencing each other, and compared these measures with the underlying synaptic strength. We found that: 1. Even though the network itself was sparse, every node could causally influence other nodes. In this case, a mere elucidation of causal relationships did not provide any useful information. 2. Additionally, the full knowledge of the structural connectome did not provide a complete causal picture of the system either, since nodes frequently influenced each other indirectly, that is, via other intermediate nodes. Our results show that just elucidating causal contributions in complex networks such as the brain is not sufficient to draw mechanistic conclusions. Moreover, quantifying causal interactions requires a systematic and extensive manipulation framework. The framework put forward here benefits from employing neural network models, and in turn, provides explainability for them.

Excitatory and inhibitory (E & I) inputs to cortical neurons remain balanced across different conditions. The balanced network model provides a self-consistent account of this observation: population rates dynamically adjust to yield a state in which all neurons are active at biological levels, with their E & I inputs tightly balanced. But global tight E/I balance predicts population responses with linear stimulus-dependence and does not account for systematic cortical response nonlinearities such as divisive normalization, a canonical brain computation. However, when necessary connectivity conditions for global balance fail, states arise in which only a localized subset of neurons are active and have balanced inputs. We analytically show that in networks of neurons with different stimulus selectivities, the emergence of such localized balance states robustly leads to normalization, including sublinear integration and winner-take-all behavior. An alternative model that exhibits normalization is the Stabilized Supralinear Network (SSN), which predicts a regime of loose, rather than tight, E/I balance. However, an understanding of the causal relationship between E/I balance and normalization in SSN and conditions under which SSN yields significant sublinear integration are lacking. For weak inputs, SSN integrates inputs supralinearly, while for very strong inputs it approaches a regime of tight balance. We show that when this latter regime is globally balanced, SSN cannot exhibit strong normalization for any input strength; thus, in SSN too, significant normalization requires localized balance. In summary, we causally and quantitatively connect a fundamental feature of cortical dynamics with a canonical brain computation. Time allowing I will also cover our work extending a normative theoretical account of normalization which explains it as an example of efficient coding of natural stimuli. We show that when biological noise is accounted for, this theory makes the same prediction as the SSN: a transition to supralinear integration for weak stimuli.

Dysregulation of emotional processing and its integration with cognitive functions are central features of many mental/emotional disorders associated both with externalizing problems (aggressive, antisocial behaviors) and internalizing problems (anxiety, depression). As Dr. Joseph LeDoux, our invited speaker of this program, wrote in his famous book “Synaptic self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are”—the brain’s synapses—are the channels through which we think, act, imagine, feel, and remember. Synapses encode the essence of personality, enabling each of us to function as a distinctive, integrated individual from moment to moment. Thus, exploring the functioning of synapses leads to the understanding of the mechanism of (patho)physiological function of our brain. In this context, we have investigated the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders, with particular emphasis on the synaptic function of model mice of various psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, autism, depression, and PTSD. Our current interest is how synaptic inputs are integrated to generate the action potential. Because the spatiotemporal organization of neuronal firing is crucial for information processing, but how thousands of inputs to the dendritic spines drive the firing remains a central question in neuroscience. We identified a distinct pattern of synaptic integration in the disease-related models, in which extra-large (XL) spines generate NMDA spikes within these spines, which was sufficient to drive neuronal firing. We experimentally and theoretically observed that XL spines negatively correlated with working memory. Our work offers a whole new concept for dendritic computation and network dynamics, and the understanding of psychiatric research will be greatly reconsidered. The second half of my talk is the development of a novel synaptic tool. Because, no matter how beautifully we can illuminate the spine morphology and how accurately we can quantify the synaptic integration, the links between synapse and brain function remain correlational. In order to challenge the causal relationship between synapse and brain function, we established AS-PaRac1, which is unique not only because it can specifically label and manipulate the recently potentiated dendritic spine (Hayashi-Takagi et al, 2015, Nature). With use of AS-PaRac1, we developed an activity-dependent simultaneous labeling of the presynaptic bouton and the potentiated spines to establish “functional connectomics” in a synaptic resolution. When we apply this new imaging method for PTSD model mice, we identified a completely new functional neural circuit of brain region A→B→C with a very strong S/N in the PTSD model mice. This novel tool of “functional connectomics” and its photo-manipulation could open up new areas of emotional/psychiatric research, and by extension, shed light on the neural networks that determine who we are.

Recent advancements in anatomical and functional imaging emphasize the presence of whole-brain networks organized according to functional and connectivity gradients, but how such structure shapes activity propagation and memory processes still lacks asatisfactory model. We analyse the fine-grained spatiotemporal dynamics of spontaneous activity in the entire dorsal cortex. through simultaneous recordings of wide-field voltage sensitive dye transients (VS), cortical ECoG, and hippocampal LFP in anesthetized mice. Both VS and ECoG show cortical avalanches. When measuring avalanches from the VS signal, we find a major deviation of the size scaling from the power-law distribution predicted by the criticality hypothesis and well approximated by the results from the ECoG. Breaking from scale-invariance, avalanches can thus be grouped in two regimes. Small avalanches consists of a limited number of co-activation modes involving a sub-set of cortical networks (related to the Default Mode Network), while larger avalanches involve a substantial portion of the cortical surface and can be clustered into two families: one immediately preceded by Retrosplenial Cortex activation and mostly involving medial-posterior networks, the other initiated by Somatosensory Cortex and extending preferentially along the lateral-anterior region. Rather than only differing in terms of size, these two set of events appear to be associated with markedly different brain-wide dynamical states: they are accompaniedby a shift in the hippocampal LFP, from the ripple band (smaller) to the gamma band (larger avalanches), and correspond to opposite directionality in the cortex-to-hippocampus causal relationship. These results provide a concrete description of global cortical dynamics, and shows how cortex in its entirety is involved in bi-directional communication in the hippocampus even in sleep-like states.

Learning the consequences our choices have as we interact with our world is critical for flexible behavior. Relational knowledge of one’s environment gives structure to otherwise-individual one-to-one stimulus-outcome mappings, providing a substrate to globally update behavioral contingencies in the face of changes in the landscape of reward. In the brain, this relational knowledge is thought to be encoded in the hippocampus (HPC) in the form of a cognitive map, while prefrontal regions, such as orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), are thought to instantiate subjective estimates of location on the map, though direct neurophysiological evidence is lacking. In this talk, I will present recent work demonstrating the causal relationship between HPC and OFC as nonhuman primates perform a reward learning task requiring them to learn and maintain knowledge of changing stimulus-outcome associations. I will then provide direct evidence that single primate hippocampal neurons represent an abstract map of the value space defined by the task. Finally, I use behavioral modeling to highlight one possible strategy by which knowledge of value space is exploited by animals to detect changes in choice-outcome mappings and proactively update their behavior in response.