Incremental Mutual Information: A New Method for Characterizing the Strength and Dynamics of Connections in Neuronal Circuits

Understanding the computations performed by neuronal circuits requires characterizing the strength and dynamics of the connections between individual neurons. This characterization is typically achieved by measuring the correlation in the activity of two neurons. We have developed a new measure for studying connectivity in neuronal circuits based on information theory, the incremental mutual information (IMI). By conditioning out the temporal dependencies in the responses of individual neurons before measuring the dependency between them, IMI improves on standard correlation-based measures in several important ways: 1) it has the potential to disambiguate statistical dependencies that reflect the connection between neurons from those caused by other sources (e.g. shared inputs or intrinsic cellular or network mechanisms) provided that the dependencies have appropriate timescales, 2) for the study of early sensory systems, it does not require responses to repeated trials of identical stimulation, and 3) it does not assume that the connection between neurons is linear. We describe the theory and implementation of IMI in detail and demonstrate its utility on experimental recordings from the primate visual system.

[1]  L. Paninski,et al.  Common-input models for multiple neural spike-train data , 2007, Network.

[2]  G. P. Moore,et al.  Neuronal spike trains and stochastic point processes. II. Simultaneous spike trains. , 1967, Biophysical journal.

[3]  Xue Wang,et al.  Granger Causality between Multiple Interdependent Neurobiological Time Series: Blockwise versus Pairwise Methods , 2007, Int. J. Neural Syst..

[4]  Duane Q Nykamp,et al.  Pinpointing connectivity despite hidden nodes within stimulus-driven networks. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[5]  G. P. Moore,et al.  Neuronal spike trains and stochastic point processes. I. The single spike train. , 1967, Biophysical journal.

[6]  S. Frenzel,et al.  Partial mutual information for coupling analysis of multivariate time series. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[7]  Carlos D. Brody,et al.  Disambiguating Different Covariation Types , 1999, Neural Computation.

[8]  W. J. Melssen,et al.  Detection and estimation of neural connectivity based on crosscorrelation analysis , 1987, Biological Cybernetics.

[9]  J. Donoghue,et al.  Collective dynamics in human and monkey sensorimotor cortex: predicting single neuron spikes , 2009, Nature Neuroscience.

[10]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Spatio-temporal correlations and visual signalling in a complete neuronal population , 2008, Nature.

[11]  Peter E. Latham,et al.  Neural characterization in partially observed populations of spiking neurons , 2007, NIPS.

[12]  Nikos K Logothetis,et al.  A toolbox for the fast information analysis of multiple-site LFP, EEG and spike train recordings , 2009, BMC Neuroscience.

[13]  Matteo Carandini,et al.  Thalamic filtering of retinal spike trains by postsynaptic summation. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[14]  R. Reid,et al.  Synchronous activity in the visual system. , 1999, Annual review of physiology.

[15]  Carlos D. Brody,et al.  Correlations Without Synchrony , 1999, Neural Computation.

[16]  A. Aertsen,et al.  Evaluation of neuronal connectivity: Sensitivity of cross-correlation , 1985, Brain Research.

[17]  M K Habib,et al.  Dynamics of neuronal firing correlation: modulation of "effective connectivity". , 1989, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  Xue Wang,et al.  Estimating Granger causality after stimulus onset: A cautionary note , 2008, NeuroImage.

[19]  C. Granger.  Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods , 1969 .

[20]  Schreiber,et al.  Measuring information transfer , 2000, Physical review letters.

[21]  D. Q. Nykamp,et al.  A mathematical framework for inferring connectivity in probabilistic neuronal networks. , 2007, Mathematical biosciences.

[22]  Emery N. Brown,et al.  A general statistical framework for assessing Granger causality , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[23]  Stefano Panzeri,et al.  Correcting for the sampling bias problem in spike train information measures. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  Uri T Eden,et al.  A point process framework for relating neural spiking activity to spiking history, neural ensemble, and extrinsic covariate effects. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  M. Ding,et al.  Decomposing Neural Synchrony: Toward an Explanation for Near-Zero Phase-Lag in Cortical Oscillatory Networks , 2008, PloS one.