Untuned but not irrelevant: The role of untuned neurons in sensory information coding

To study sensory representations, neuroscientists record neural activities while presenting different stimuli to the animal. From these data, we identify neurons whose activities depend systematically on each aspect of the stimulus. These neurons are said to be “tuned” to that stimulus feature. It is typically assumed that these tuned neurons represent the stimulus feature in their firing, whereas any “untuned” neurons do not contribute to its representation. Recent experimental work questioned this assumption, showing that in some circumstances, neurons that are untuned to a particular stimulus feature can contribute to its representation. These findings suggest that, by ignoring untuned neurons, our understanding of population coding might be incomplete. At the same time, several key questions remain unanswered: Are the impacts of untuned neurons on population coding due to weak tuning that is nevertheless below the threshold the experimenters set for calling neurons tuned (vs untuned)? Do these effects hold for different population sizes and/or correlation structures? And could neural circuit function ever benefit from having some untuned neurons vs having all neurons be tuned to the stimulus? Using theoretical calculations and analyses of in vivo neural data, I answer those questions by: a) showing how, in the presence of correlated variability, untuned neurons can enhance sensory information coding, for a variety of population sizes and correlation structures; b) demonstrating that this effect does not rely on weak tuning; and c) identifying conditions under which the neural code can be made more informative by replacing some of the tuned neurons with untuned ones. These conditions specify when there is a functional benefit to having untuned neurons. Author Summary In the visual system, most neurons’ firing rates are tuned to various aspects of the stimulus (motion, contrast, etc.). For each stimulus feature, however some neurons appear to be untuned: their firing rates do not depend on that stimulus feature. Previous work on information coding in neural populations ignored untuned neurons, assuming that only the neurons tuned to a given stimulus feature contribute to its encoding. Recent experimental work questioned this assumption, showing that neurons with no apparent tuning can sometimes contribute to information coding. However, key questions remain unanswered. First, how do the untuned neurons contribute to information coding, and could this effect rely on those neurons having weak tuning that was overlooked? Second, does the function of a neural circuit ever benefit from having some neurons untuned? Or should every neuron be tuned (even weakly) to every stimulus feature? Here, I use mathematical calculations and analyses of data from the mouse visual cortex to answer those questions. First, I show how (and why) correlations between neurons enable the untuned neurons to contribute to information coding. Second, I show that neural populations can often do a better job of encoding a given stimulus feature when some of the neurons are untuned for that stimulus feature. Thus, it may be best for the brain to segregate its tuning, leaving some neurons untuned for each stimulus feature. Along with helping to explain how the brain processes external stimuli, this work has strong implications for attempts to decode brain signals, to control brain-machine interfaces: better performance could be obtained if the activities of all neurons are decoded, as opposed to only those with strong tuning.

[1]  Mark Mazurek,et al.  Robust quantification of orientation selectivity and direction selectivity , 2014, Front. Neural Circuits.

[2]  M. Carandini,et al.  Cortical State Determines Global Variability and Correlations in Visual Cortex , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[3]  Sliman J. Bensmaia,et al.  Biological and bionic hands: natural neural coding and artificial perception , 2015, Brain Stimulation.

[4]  Houman Safaai,et al.  Coordinated Population Activity Underlying Texture Discrimination in Rat Barrel Cortex , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[5]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Optimal speed estimation in natural image movies predicts human performance , 2015, Nature Communications.

[6]  Adam J. Sachs,et al.  Correlated variability modifies working memory fidelity in primate prefrontal neuronal ensembles , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Rava Azeredo da Silveira,et al.  High-Fidelity Coding with Correlated Neurons , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[8]  Yu Hu,et al.  The Sign Rule and Beyond: Boundary Effects, Flexibility, and Noise Correlations in Neural Population Codes , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[9]  Alexander S. Ecker,et al.  State Dependence of Noise Correlations in Macaque Primary Visual Cortex , 2014, Neuron.

[10]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Partitioning neuronal variability , 2014, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  D. Ferster,et al.  Synchronous Membrane Potential Fluctuations in Neurons of the Cat Visual Cortex , 1999, Neuron.

[12]  Maoz Shamir,et al.  Emerging principles of population coding: in search for the neural code , 2014, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[13]  Andrew M. Clark,et al.  Stimulus onset quenches neural variability: a widespread cortical phenomenon , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  K. H. Britten,et al.  Responses of neurons in macaque MT to stochastic motion signals , 1993, Visual Neuroscience.

[15]  Byron M. Yu,et al.  A high-performance brain–computer interface , 2006, Nature.

[16]  Arnulf B. A. Graf,et al.  Decoding the activity of neuronal populations in macaque primary visual cortex , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  Eric Shea-Brown,et al.  Input nonlinearities can shape beyond-pairwise correlations and improve information transmission by neural populations. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[18]  A. Pouget,et al.  Not Noisy, Just Wrong: The Role of Suboptimal Inference in Behavioral Variability , 2012, Neuron.

[19]  Ehud Zohary,et al.  Correlated neuronal discharge rate and its implications for psychophysical performance , 1994, Nature.

[20]  R. Reid,et al.  Precisely correlated firing in cells of the lateral geniculate nucleus , 1996, Nature.

[21]  Peter E. Latham,et al.  Robust information propagation through noisy neural circuits , 2016, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[22]  Haim Sompolinsky,et al.  Implications of Neuronal Diversity on Population Coding , 2006, Neural Computation.

[23]  R. Shapley,et al.  Orientation Selectivity in Macaque V1: Diversity and Laminar Dependence , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[24]  A. Pouget,et al.  Information-limiting correlations , 2014, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  Alexander S. Ecker,et al.  The Effect of Noise Correlations in Populations of Diversely Tuned Neurons , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  H. Sompolinsky,et al.  Population coding in neuronal systems with correlated noise. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[27]  Daeyeol Lee,et al.  Effects of noise correlations on information encoding and decoding. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[28]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  A Fast and Simple Population Code for Orientation in Primate V1 , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[29]  Cyriel M A Pennartz,et al.  Population-Level Neural Codes Are Robust to Single-Neuron Variability from a Multidimensional Coding Perspective. , 2016, Cell reports.

[30]  Eric Shea-Brown,et al.  Stimulus-Dependent Correlations and Population Codes , 2008, Neural Computation.

[31]  Rava Azeredo da Silveira,et al.  Structures of Neural Correlation and How They Favor Coding , 2016, Neuron.

[32]  M. Cohen,et al.  Measuring and interpreting neuronal correlations , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[33]  David J. Field,et al.  What Is the Other 85 Percent of V1 Doing , 2006 .

[34]  Byron M. Yu,et al.  Neural constraints on learning , 2014, Nature.

[35]  W. Bair,et al.  Correlated Firing in Macaque Visual Area MT: Time Scales and Relationship to Behavior , 2001, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  A. Pouget,et al.  Neural correlations, population coding and computation , 2006, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[37]  Miguel A. L. Nicolelis,et al.  Brain–machine interfaces: past, present and future , 2006, Trends in Neurosciences.

[38]  TJ Gawne,et al.  How independent are the messages carried by adjacent inferior temporal cortical neurons? , 1993, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[39]  M. Carandini,et al.  The Nature of Shared Cortical Variability , 2015, Neuron.

[40]  Eric Shea-Brown,et al.  Triplet correlations among similarly tuned cells impact population coding , 2015, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[41]  L. Pinneo On noise in the nervous system. , 1966, Psychological review.

[42]  Peter Dayan,et al.  The Effect of Correlated Variability on the Accuracy of a Population Code , 1999, Neural Computation.

[43]  F. Mechler,et al.  Independent and Redundant Information in Nearby Cortical Neurons , 2001, Science.

[44]  Benoit P. Delhaye,et al.  Key considerations in designing a somatosensory neuroprosthesis , 2016, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[45]  Maxwell H. Turner,et al.  Direction-Selective Circuits Shape Noise to Ensure a Precise Population Code , 2016, Neuron.

[46]  M. A. Smith,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Scales of Neuronal Correlation in Primary Visual Cortex , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[47]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  23 problems in systems neuroscience , 2006 .