Jacob A. Westerberg & Jeffrey D. Schall · 2016. 5. 1. · Effect of choice difficulty on local...
1
Effect of choice difficulty on local field potentials in Frontal Eye Field of nonhuman primates Jacob A. Westerberg 1,2 , Paul G. Middlebrooks 1 & Jeffrey D. Schall 1 1 Psychology Department, Vanderbilt University & 2 Neuroscience Program, St. Olaf College Support: F32-EY023526-01A1, R01-MH055806, P30-EY008126, P30-HD015052 and Robin and Richard Patton through the E. Bronson Ingram Chair in Neuroscience at Vanderbilt University. Evoked Signals Target Epoch Choice Epoch Response Epoch mV Time (ms) Target Epoch Choice Epoch Response Epoch High Gamma Power (60-120 Hz) Low Gamma Power (30-60 Hz) Beta Power (15-30 Hz) Time (ms) Time (ms) Data from 1 macaque: n = 23 sessions, 3,576 trials Time (ms) Time (ms) Time (ms) Ln ( normalized ( amplitude^2 ) ) * -1 v Neither evoked nor frequency specific (Beta, Low Gamma, High Gamma) LFP power modulated as choice difficulty varied. v The three choice difficulties did not have significantly different primary power-contributing components within each frequency band. v Modulation of FEF LFP power is not necessary in decision-making. Future Directions: Record LFPs from multiple sites in FEF simultaneously and perform synchrony analyses to determine whether coherence between sites varies with choice difficulty. Frequency Specific Power Neural correlates of response inhibition and categorical choice have been reported in macaque Frontal Eye Field (FEF). We sought to determine whether stopping and choice are implemented by separate or overlapping pools of neurons. Consequently, the task design and technique allowed for the recording of local field potentials (LFPs) during decision-making. Here we examine whether FEF LFPs represent variations in choice difficulty during task performance. * dotted lines depict 95% confidence intervals for corresponding choice difficulty Primary Frequency Specific, Power- Contributing Component Beta Power (15-30 Hz) Low Gamma Power (30-60 Hz) High Gamma Power (60-120 Hz)
Transcript of Jacob A. Westerberg & Jeffrey D. Schall · 2016. 5. 1. · Effect of choice difficulty on local...
Effect of choice difficulty on local field potentials in Frontal Eye Field of nonhuman primates
Jacob A. Westerberg1,2, Paul G. Middlebrooks1 & Jeffrey D. Schall1
1Psychology Department, Vanderbilt University & 2Neuroscience Program, St. Olaf College
Support: F32-EY023526-01A1, R01-MH055806, P30-EY008126,P30-HD015052 and Robin and Richard Patton through the E.Bronson Ingram Chair in Neuroscience at Vanderbilt University.
EvokedSignals TargetEpoch ChoiceEpoch ResponseEpoch
mV
Time(ms)
TargetEpoch ChoiceEpoch ResponseEpoch
HighGam
maPo
wer
(60-120Hz
)LowGam
maPo
wer
(30-60Hz)
BetaPow
er(15-30Hz)
Time(ms) Time(ms)
Datafrom1macaque:n=23sessions,3,576trials
Time(ms) Time(ms) Time(ms)
Ln(normalized(am
plitude^2))*-1
v Neither evoked nor frequency specific (Beta, LowGamma, High Gamma) LFP power modulated aschoice difficulty varied.
v The three choice difficulties did not have significantlydifferent primary power-contributing componentswithin each frequency band.
v Modulation of FEF LFP power is not necessary indecision-making.
Future Directions: Record LFPs from multiple sites in FEFsimultaneously and perform synchrony analyses todetermine whether coherence between sites varies with choicedifficulty.
Freq
uencySpecificPo
werNeural correlates of response inhibition and categorical
choice have been reported in macaque Frontal Eye Field(FEF). We sought to determine whether stopping and choiceare implemented by separate or overlapping pools ofneurons. Consequently, the task design and techniqueallowed for the recording of local field potentials (LFPs)during decision-making. Here we examine whether FEFLFPs represent variations in choice difficulty during taskperformance.
*dottedlinesdepict95%confidenceintervalsforcorrespondingchoicedifficulty
Prim
aryFreq
uencySpecific,Pow
er-
Contrib
utingCo
mpo
nent
BetaPow
er(15-30Hz)
LowGam
maPo
wer
(30-60Hz)
HighGam
maPo
wer
(60-120Hz
)
