nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.08.2012

Modeling the impact of common noise inputs on the network activity of retinal ganglion cells

verfasst von: Michael Vidne, Yashar Ahmadian, Jonathon Shlens, Jonathan W. Pillow, Jayant Kulkarni, Alan M. Litke, E. J. Chichilnisky, Eero Simoncelli, Liam Paninski

Erschienen in: Journal of Computational Neuroscience | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Synchronized spontaneous firing among retinal ganglion cells (RGCs), on timescales faster than visual responses, has been reported in many studies. Two candidate mechanisms of synchronized firing include direct coupling and shared noisy inputs. In neighboring parasol cells of primate retina, which exhibit rapid synchronized firing that has been studied extensively, recent experimental work indicates that direct electrical or synaptic coupling is weak, but shared synaptic input in the absence of modulated stimuli is strong. However, previous modeling efforts have not accounted for this aspect of firing in the parasol cell population. Here we develop a new model that incorporates the effects of common noise, and apply it to analyze the light responses and synchronized firing of a large, densely-sampled network of over 250 simultaneously recorded parasol cells. We use a generalized linear model in which the spike rate in each cell is determined by the linear combination of the spatio-temporally filtered visual input, the temporally filtered prior spikes of that cell, and unobserved sources representing common noise. The model accurately captures the statistical structure of the spike trains and the encoding of the visual stimulus, without the direct coupling assumption present in previous modeling work. Finally, we examined the problem of decoding the visual stimulus from the spike train given the estimated parameters. The common-noise model produces Bayesian decoding performance as accurate as that of a model with direct coupling, but with significantly more robustness to spike timing perturbations.

Vorheriger Artikel Co-variation of ionic conductances supports phase maintenance in stomatogastric neurons

Nächster Artikel Spatiotemporal maps of CaMKII in dendritic spines

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

It is also useful to recall the relationship between the spatial covariance C _s and the mixing matrix M here: as noted above, since the common noise terms q _t have unit variance and are independent from the stimulus and from one another, the spatial covariance C _s is given by M ^T M. However, since \(\mathbf{C}_s = (\mathbf{UM})^T(\mathbf{UM})\) for any unitary matrix U, we can not estimate M directly; we can only obtain an estimate of C _s. Therefore, we can proceed with the estimation of the spatial covariance C _s and use any convenient decomposition of this matrix for our calculations below. (We emphasize the non-uniqueness of M because it is tempting to interpret M as a kind of effective connectivity matrix, and this over-interpretation should be avoided.)

Estimating the spatio-temporal filters k _i simultaneously while marginalizing over the common noise q is possible but computationally challenging. Therefore we held the shape of k _i fixed in this second stage but optimized its Euclidean length ||k _i||₂. The resulting model explained the data well, as discussed in Section 3 below.

We make one further simplifying approximation in the case of the population model with no direct coupling terms. Here the dimensionality of the common noise terms is extremely large: dim(q) = n _cells ×T, where T is the number of timebins in the experimental data. As discussed in Appendix A, direct optimization over q can be performed in \(O(n_{\rm cells}^3 T)\) time, i.e., computational time scaling linearly with T but unfortunately cubically in n _cells (see Paninski et al. 2010 for further discussion). This cubic scaling becomes prohibitive for large populations. However, if we make the simplifying approximation that the common noise injected into each RGC is nearly conditionally independent given the observed spikes y when computing the marginal likelihood p(y | Θ, C _s), then the optimizations over the n _cells independent noise terms q _i can be performed independently, with the total computation time scaling linearly in both n _cells and T. We found this approximation to perform reasonably in practice (see Section 3 below), largely because the pairwise correlation in the common-noise terms was always significantly less than one (see Fig. 4 below). No such approximation was necessary in the pairwise case, where the computation always scales as O(T).

In many of the three point correlation functions one can notice persistent diagonal structures. If we consider the three point correlation of neuron 1 with the time shifted firing of neurons 2 and 3, the diagonal structure is the sign of a correlation between the time shifted neurons (2 and 3).

Since x is binary, strictly speaking, u ⁱ is not a Gaussian vector solely described by its covariance. However, because the filters k ⁱ have a relatively large spatiotemporal dimension, the components of u ⁱ are weighted sums of many independent identically distributed binary random variables, and their prior marginal distributions can be well approximated by Gaussian distributions (see Pillow et al. 2011 and Ahmadian et al. 2011 for further discussion of this point). For this reason, we replaced the true (non-Gaussian) joint prior distribution of y _i with a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and covariance Eq. (24).

Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. In Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics.

Ahmadian, Y., Pillow, J., Shlens, J., Chichilnisky, E., Simoncelli, E., & Paninski, L. (2009). A decoder-based spike train metric for analyzing the neural code in the retina. In COSYNE09.

Ahmadian, Y., Pillow, J. W., & Paninski, L. (2011). Efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for decoding neural spike trains. Neural Computation, 23, 46–96.PubMedCrossRef

Arnett, D. (1978). Statistical dependence between neighboring retinal ganglion cells in goldfish. Experimental Brain Research, 32(1), 49–53.CrossRef

Bickel, P., & Doksum, K. (2001). Mathematical statistics: Basic ideas and selected topics. Prentice Hall.

Brivanlou, I., Warland, D., & Meister, M. (1998). Mechanisms of concerted firing among retinal ganglion cells. Neuron, 20(3), 527–539.PubMedCrossRef

Brody, C. (1999). Correlations without synchrony. Neural Computation, 11, 1537–1551.PubMedCrossRef

Cafaro, J., & Rieke, F. (2010). Noise correlations improve response fidelity and stimulus encoding. Nature, 468(7326), 964–967.PubMedCrossRef

Chornoboy, E., Schramm, L., & Karr, A. (1988). Maximum likelihood identification of neural point process systems. Biological Cybernetics, 59, 265–275.PubMedCrossRef

Cocco, S., Leibler, S., & Monasson, R. (2009). Neuronal couplings between retinal ganglion cells inferred by efficient inverse statistical physics methods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(33), 14058.CrossRef

Cossart, R., Aronov, D., & Yuste, R. (2003). Attractor dynamics of network up states in the neocortex. Nature, 423, 283–288.PubMedCrossRef

Dacey, D., & Brace, S. (1992). A coupled network for parasol but not midget ganglion cells in the primate retina. Visual Neuroscience, 9(3–4), 279–290.PubMedCrossRef

DeVries, S. H. (1999). Correlated firing in rabbit retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Neurophysiology, 81(2), 908–920.PubMed

Dombeck, D., Khabbaz, A., Collman, F., Adelman, T., & Tank, D. (2007). Imaging large-scale neural activity with cellular resolution in awake, mobile mice. Neuron, 56(1), 43–57.PubMedCrossRef

Dorn, J. D., & Ringach, D. L. (2003). Estimating membrane voltage correlations from extracellular spike trains. Journal of Neurophysiology, 89(4), 2271–2278.PubMedCrossRef

Fahrmeir, L., & Kaufmann, H. (1991). On Kalman filtering, posterior mode estimation and fisher scoring in dynamic exponential family regression. Metrika, 38, 37–60.CrossRef

Fahrmeir, L., & Tutz, G. (1994). Multivariate statistical modelling based on generalized linear models. Springer.

Field, G., Gauthier, J., Sher, A., Greschner, M., Machado, T., Jepson, L., et al. (2010). Mapping a neural circuit: A complete input-output diagram in the primate retina. Nature, 467, 673–677.PubMedCrossRef

Frechette, E., Sher, A., Grivich, M., Petrusca, D., Litke, A., & Chichilnisky, E. (2005). Fidelity of the ensemble code for visual motion in primate retina. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 119.PubMedCrossRef

Gauthier, J., Field, G., Sher, A., Greschner, M., Shlens, J., Litke, A., et al. (2009). Receptive fields in primate retina are coordinated to sample visual space more uniformly. PLoS Biology, 7(4), e1000,063.CrossRef

Greschner, M., Shlens, J., Bakolitsa, C., Field, G., Gauthier, J., Jepson, L., et al. (2011). Correlated firing among major ganglion cell types in primate retina. The Journal of Physiology, 589(1), 75.PubMedCrossRef

Gutnisky, D., & Josic, K. (2010). Generation of spatiotemporally correlated spike trains and local field potentials using a multivariate autoregressive process. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103(5), 2912.PubMedCrossRef

Harris, K., Csicsvari, J., Hirase, H., Dragoi, G., & Buzsaki, G. (2003). Organization of cell assemblies in the hippocampus. Nature, 424, 552–556.PubMedCrossRef

Hayes, M. H. (1996). Statistical digital signal processing and modeling. Wiley.

Haykin, S. (2001). Adaptive filter theory. Pearson Education India.

Higham, N. (1988). Computing a nearest symmetric positive semidefinite matrix. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 103, 103–118.CrossRef

Iyengar, S. (2001). The analysis of multiple neural spike trains. In Advances in methodological and applied aspects of probability and statistics, Gordon and Breach (pp. 507–524).

Kass, R., & Raftery, A. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795.

Keat, J., Reinagel, P., Reid, R., & Meister, M. (2001). Predicting every spike: A model for the responses of visual neurons. Neuron, 30, 803–817.PubMedCrossRef

Kelly, R., Smith, M., Samonds, J., Kohn, A., Bonds, J., Movshon, A. B., et al. (2007). Comparison of recordings from microelectrode arrays and single electrodes in the visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 261–264.PubMedCrossRef

Kerr, J. N. D., Greenberg, D., & Helmchen, F. (2005). Imaging input and output of neocortical networks in vivo. PNAS, 102(39), 14063–14068.PubMedCrossRef

Koyama, S., & Paninski, L. (2010). Efficient computation of the map path and parameter estimation in integrate-and-fire and more general state-space models. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 29, 89–105.PubMedCrossRef

Krumin, M., & Shoham, S. (2009). Generation of spike trains with controlled auto-and cross-correlation functions. Neural Computation, 21(6), 1642–1664.PubMedCrossRef

Kulkarni, J., & Paninski, L. (2007). Common-input models for multiple neural spike-train data. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 18, 375–407.CrossRef

Latham, P., & Nirenberg, S. (2005). Synergy, redundancy, and independence in population codes, revisited. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25(21), 5195.PubMedCrossRef

Lawhern, V., Wu, W., Hatsopoulos, N., & Paninski, L. (2010). Population decoding of motor cortical activity using a generalized linear model with hidden states. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 189(2), 267–280.PubMedCrossRef

Litke, A., Bezayiff N., Chichilnisky E., Cunningham W., Dabrowski W., Grillo A., et al. (2004). What does the eye tell the brain? Development of a system for the large scale recording of retinal output activity. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 51, 1434–1440.CrossRef

Macke, J., Berens, P., Ecker, A., Tolias, A., & Bethge, M. (2009). Generating spike trains with specified correlation coefficients. Neural Computation, 21, 397–423.PubMedCrossRef

MacLean, J., Watson, B., Aaron, G., & Yuste, R. (2005). Internal dynamics determine the cortical response to thalamic stimulation. Neuron, 48, 811–823.PubMedCrossRef

Martignon, L., Deco, G., Laskey, K., Diamond, M., Freiwald, W., & Vaadia, E. (2000). Neural coding: Higher-order temporal patterns in the neuro-statistics of cell assemblies. Neural Computation, 12, 2621–2653.PubMedCrossRef

Masmoudi, K., Antonini, M., & Kornprobst, P. (2010). Encoding and decoding stimuli using a biological realistic model: The non-determinism in spike timings seen as a dither signal. In Proc of research in encoding and decoding of neural ensembles.

Mastronarde, D. (1983). Correlated firing of cat retinal ganglion cells. I. Spontaneously active inputs to x-and y-cells. Journal of Neurophysiology, 49(2), 303.PubMed

McCulloch, C., Searle, S., & Neuhaus, J. (2008). Generalized, linear, and mixed models. In Wiley series in probability and statistics.

Meister, M., Lagnado, L., & Baylor, D. (1995). Concerted signaling by retinal ganglion cells. Science, 270(5239), 1207.PubMedCrossRef

Mishchenko, Y., Vogelstein, J., & Paninski, L. (2011). A Bayesian approach for inferring neuronal connectivity from calcium fluorescent imaging data. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 5(2B), 1229–1261.CrossRef

Nicolelis, M., Dimitrov, D., Carmena, J., Crist, R., Lehew, G., Kralik, J., et al. (2003). Chronic, multisite, multielectrode recordings in macaque monkeys. PNAS, 100, 11,041–11,046.PubMedCrossRef

Niebur, E. (2007). Generation of synthetic spike trains with defined pairwise correlations. Neural Computation, 19(7), 1720–1738.PubMedCrossRef

Nirenberg, S., Carcieri, S., Jacobs, A., & Latham, P. (2002). Retinal ganglion cells act largely as independent encoders. Nature, 411, 698–701.CrossRef

Nykamp, D. (2005). Revealing pairwise coupling in linear-nonlinear networks. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 65, 2005–2032.CrossRef

Nykamp, D. (2008). Exploiting history-dependent effects to infer network connectivity. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 68(2), 354–391.CrossRef

Nykamp, D. (2009). A stimulus-dependent connectivity analysis of neuronal networks. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 59(2), 147–173.PubMedCrossRef

Ohki, K., Chung, S., Kara, P., Hübener, M., Bonhoeffer, T., & Reid, R. (2006). Highly ordered arrangement of single neurons in orientation pinwheels. Nature, 442(7105), 925–928.PubMedCrossRef

Okatan, M., Wilson, M., & Brown, E. (2005). Analyzing functional connectivity using a network likelihood model of ensemble neural spiking activity. Neural Computation, 17, 1927–1961.PubMedCrossRef

Paninski, L. (2004). Maximum likelihood estimation of cascade point-process neural encoding models. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 15, 243–262.CrossRef

Paninski, L. (2005). Log-concavity results on Gaussian process methods for supervised and unsupervised learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 17.

Paninski, L., Pillow, J., & Simoncelli, E. (2004). Maximum likelihood estimation of a stochastic integrate-and-fire neural model. Neural Computation, 16, 2533–2561.PubMedCrossRef

Paninski, L., Ahmadian, Y., Ferreira, D., Koyama, S., Rahnama Rad, K., Vidne, M., et al. (2010) A new look at state-space models for neural data. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 29, 107–126.PubMedCrossRef

Pillow, J., & Latham, P. (2007). Neural characterization in partially observed populations of spiking neurons. In NIPS.

Pillow, J., Paninski, L., Uzzell, V., Simoncelli, E., & Chichilnisky, E. (2005). Prediction and decoding of retinal ganglion cell responses with a probabilistic spiking model. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 11,003–11,013.PubMedCrossRef

Pillow, J., Shlens, J., Paninski, L., Sher, A., Litke, A., Chichilnisky, E., et al. (2008). Spatiotemporal correlations and visual signaling in a complete neuronal population. Nature, 454, 995–999.PubMedCrossRef

Pillow, J., Ahmadian, Y., & Paninski, L. (2011). Model-based decoding, information estimation, and change-point detection in multi-neuron spike trains. Neural Computation, 23, 1–45.PubMedCrossRef

Rigat, F., de Gunst, M., & van Pelt, J. (2006). Bayesian modelling and analysis of spatio-temporal neuronal networks. Bayesian Analysis, 1, 733–764.CrossRef

de la Rocha, J., Doiron, B., Shea-Brown, E., Josic, K., & Reyes, A. (2007). Correlation between neural spike trains increases with firing rate. Nature, 448, 802–806.PubMedCrossRef

Rybicki, G., & Hummer, D. (1991). An accelerated lambda iteration method for multilevel radiative transfer, appendix b: Fast solution for the diagonal elements of the inverse of a tridiagonal matrix. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 245, 171.

Schneidman, E., Bialek, W., & Berry, M. (2003). Synergy, redundancy, and independence in population codes. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(37), 11,539.PubMed

Schneidman, E., Berry, M., Segev, R., & Bialek, W. (2006). Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population. Nature, 440, 1007–1012.PubMedCrossRef

Schnitzer, M., & Meister, M. (2003). Multineuronal firing patterns in the signal from eye to brain. Neuron, 37, 499–511.PubMedCrossRef

Segev, R., Goodhouse, J., Puchalla, J., & Berry, M. (2004). Recording spikes from a large fraction of the ganglion cells in a retinal patch. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1154–1161.PubMedCrossRef

Shlens, J., Field, G., Gauthier, J., Grivich, M., Petrusca, D., Sher, A., et al. (2006). The structure of multi-neuron firing patterns in primate retina. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(32), 8254.PubMedCrossRef

Shlens, J., Field, G. D., Gauthier, J. L., Greschner, M., Sher, A., Litke, A. M., et al. (2009). The structure of large-scale synchronized firing in primate retina. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(15), 5022–5031. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5187-08.2009 PubMedCrossRef

Smith, A., & Brown, E. (2003). Estimating a state-space model from point process observations. Neural Computation, 15, 965–991.PubMedCrossRef

Stein, R., Weber, D., Aoyagi, Y., Prochazka, A., Wagenaar, J., Shoham, S., et al. (2004). Coding of position by simultaneously recorded sensory neurones in the cat dorsal root ganglion. The Journal of Physiology, 560(3), 883–896.PubMedCrossRef

Stevenson, I., Rebesco, J., Miller, L., & Körding, K. (2008). Inferring functional connections between neurons. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(6), 582–588.PubMedCrossRef

Stevenson, I., Rebesco, J., Hatsopoulos, N., Haga, Z., Miller, L., & Körding, K. (2009). Bayesian inference of functional connectivity and network structure from spikes. IEEE Transactions On Neural Systems And Rehabilitation Engineering, 17(3), 203.PubMedCrossRef

Trong, P., & Rieke, F. (2008). Origin of correlated activity between parasol retinal ganglion cells. Nature Neuroscience, 11(11), 1343–1351.PubMedCrossRef

Truccolo, W., Eden, U., Fellows, M., Donoghue, J., & Brown, E. (2005). A point process framework for relating neural spiking activity to spiking history, neural ensemble and extrinsic covariate effects. Journal of Neurophysiology, 93, 1074–1089.PubMedCrossRef

Usrey, W., & Reid, R. (1999). Synchronous activity in the visual system. Annual Review of Physiology, 61(1), 435–456.PubMedCrossRef

Utikal, K. (1997). A new method for detecting neural interconnectivity. Biological Cyberkinetics, 76, 459–470.CrossRef

Van Pelt, J., Vajda, I., Wolters, P., Corner, M., & Ramakers, G. (2005). Dynamics and plasticity in developing neuronal networks in vitro. Progress in Brain Research, 147, 173–188.PubMed

Vidne, M., Kulkarni, J., Ahmadian, Y., Pillow, J., Shlens, J., Chichilnisky, E., et al. (2009). Inferring functional connectivity in an ensemble of retinal ganglion cells sharing a common input. In Frontiers in systems neuroscience conference abstract: Computational and systems neuroscience 2009.

Warland, D., Reinagel, P., & Meister, M. (1997). Decoding visual information from a population of retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Neurophysiology, 78, 2336–2350.PubMed

Wilson, J. M., Dombeck, D. A., Diaz-Rios, M., Harris-Warrick, R. M., & Brownstone, R. M. (2007). Two-photon calcium imaging of network activity in XFP-expressing neurons in the mouse. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97(4), 3118–3125.PubMedCrossRef

Wu, W., Kulkarni, J., Hatsopoulos, N., & Paninski, L. (2008). Neural decoding of goal-directed movements using a linear statespace model with hidden states. In Computational and systems neuroscience meeting.

Yu, B., Afshar, A., Santhanam, G., Ryu, S., Shenoy, K., & Sahani, M. (2006). Extracting dynamical structure embedded in neural activity. In NIPS.

Yu, B., Cunningham, J., Santhanam, G., Ryu, S., Shenoy, K., & Sahani, M. (2009). Gaussian-process factor analysis for low-dimensional single-trial analysis of neural population activity. In NIPS.

Zhang, K., Ginzburg, I., McNaughton, B., & Sejnowski, T. (1998). Interpreting neuronal population activity by reconstruction: Unified framework with application to hippocampal place cells. Journal of Neurophysiology, 79, 1017–1044.PubMed

Titel: Modeling the impact of common noise inputs on the network activity of retinal ganglion cells
verfasst von: Michael Vidne
Yashar Ahmadian
Jonathon Shlens
Jonathan W. Pillow
Jayant Kulkarni
Alan M. Litke
E. J. Chichilnisky
Eero Simoncelli
Liam Paninski
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2012
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Computational Neuroscience / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0929-5313
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6873
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10827-011-0376-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Inferring synaptic inputs given a noisy voltage trace via sequential Monte Carlo methods

Improved measures of phase-coupling between spikes and the Local Field Potential

Does dynamical synchronization among neurons facilitate learning and enhance task performance?

The effects of DBS patterns on basal ganglia activity and thalamic relay

Co-variation of ionic conductances supports phase maintenance in stomatogastric neurons

Dynamical changes in neurons during seizures determine tonic to clonic shift

Premium Partner