Prefrontal rhythms for cognitive control

Goal-directed behavior requires flexible selection among action plans and updating behavioral strategies when they fail to achieve desired goals. Lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) is implicated in the execution of behavior-guiding rule-based cognitive control while anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is implicated in monitoring processes and updating rules. Rule-based cognitive control requires selective processing while process monitoring benefits from combinatorial processing. I used a combination of computational and experimental methods to investigate how network oscillations and neuronal heterogeneity contribute to cognitive control through their effects on selective versus combinatorial processing modes in LPFC and ACC. First, I adapted an existing LPFC model to explore input frequency- and coherence-based output selection mechanisms for flexible routing of rate-coded signals. I show that the oscillatory states of input encoding populations can exhibit a stronger influence over downstream competition than their activity levels. This enables an output driven by a weaker resonant input signal to suppress lower-frequency competing responses to stronger, less resonant (though possibly higher-frequency) input signals. While signals are encoded in population firing rates, output selection and signal routing can be governed independently by the frequency and coherence of oscillatory inputs and their correspondence with output resonant properties. Flexible response selection and gating can be achieved by oscillatory state control mechanisms operating on input encoding populations. These dynamic mechanisms enable experimentally-observed LPFC beta and gamma oscillations to flexibly govern the selection and gating of rate-coded signals for downstream read-out. Furthermore, I demonstrate how differential drives to distinct interneuron populations can switch working memory representations between asynchronous and oscillatory states that support rule-based selection. Next, I analyzed physiological data from the LeBeau laboratory and built a de novo model constrained by the biological data. Experimental data demonstrated that fast network oscillations at both the beta- and gamma frequency bands could be elicited in vitro in ACC and neurons exhibited a wide range of intrinsic properties. Computational modeling of the ACC network revealed that the frequency of network oscillation generated was dependent upon the time course of inhibition. Principal cell heterogeneity broadened the range of frequencies generated by the model network. In addition, with different frequency inputs to two neuronal assemblies, heterogeneity decreased competition and increased spike coherence between the networks thus conferring a combinatorial advantage to the network. These findings suggest that oscillating neuronal populations can support either response selection (routing), or combination, depending on the interplay between the kinetics of synaptic inhibition and the degree of heterogeneity of principal cell intrinsic conductances. Such differences may support functional differences between the roles of LPFC and ACC in cognitive control

Prefrontal oscillations modulate the propagation of neuronal activity required for working memory

[EN] Cognition involves using attended information, maintained in working memory (WM), to guide action. During a cognitive task, a correct response requires flexible, selective gating so that only the appropriate information flows from WM to downstream effectors that carry out the response. In this work, we used biophysically-detailed modeling to explore the hypothesis that network oscillations in prefrontal cortex (PFC), leveraging local inhibition, can independently gate responses to items in WM. The key role of local inhibition was to control the period between spike bursts in the outputs, and to produce an oscillatory response no matter whether the WM item was maintained in an asynchronous or oscillatory state. We found that the WM item that induced an oscillatory population response in the PFC output layer with the shortest period between spike bursts was most reliably propagated. The network resonant frequency (i.e., the input frequency that produces the largest response) of the output layer can be flexibly tuned by varying the excitability of deep layer principal cells. Our model suggests that experimentally-observed modulation of PFC beta-frequency (15-30 Hz) and gamma -frequency (30-80 Hz) oscillations could leverage network resonance and local inhibition to govern the flexible routing of signals in service to cognitive processes like gating outputs from working memory and the selection of rule-based actions. Importantly, we show for the first time that nonspecific changes in deep layer excitability can tune the output gate's resonant frequency, enabling the specific selection of signals encoded by populations in asynchronous or fast oscillatory states. More generally, this represents a dynamic mechanism by which adjusting network excitability can govern the propagation of asynchronous and oscillatory signals throughout neocortex.This work was supported by the U.S. Army Research Office under award number ARO W911NF-12-R-0012-02 to N. K., the U.S. Office of Naval Research under award number ONR MURI N00014-16-1-2832 to M. H. and E. M., the National Institute of Mental Health under award number NIMH R37MH087027 to E. M., and The MIT Picower Institute Faculty Innovation Fund to E. M. We would like to acknowledge Joachim Hass and Michelle McCarthy for early discussions of our modeling results, as well as Andre Bastos and Mikael Lundqvist for discussions relating our modeling work to their experiments.Sherfey, J.; Ardid-Ramírez, JS.; Miller, EK.; Hasselmo, ME.; Kopell, NJ. (2020). Prefrontal oscillations modulate the propagation of neuronal activity required for working memory. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 173:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2020.107228113173Adams, N. E., Sherfey, J. S., Kopell, N. J., Whittington, M. A., & LeBeau, F. E. N. (2017). Hetereogeneity in Neuronal Intrinsic Properties: A Possible Mechanism for Hub-Like Properties of the Rat Anterior Cingulate Cortex during Network Activity. eneuro, 4(1), ENEURO.0313-16.2017. doi:10.1523/eneuro.0313-16.2017Akam, T., & Kullmann, D. M. (2010). Oscillations and Filtering Networks Support Flexible Routing of Information. Neuron, 67(2), 308-320. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.06.019Amiez, C., Joseph, J.-P., & Procyk, E. (2005). Anterior cingulate error-related activity is modulated by predicted reward. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21(12), 3447-3452. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04170.xArdid, S., Sherfey, J. S., McCarthy, M. M., Hass, J., Pittman-Polletta, B. R., & Kopell, N. (2019). Biased competition in the absence of input bias revealed through corticostriatal computation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(17), 8564-8569. doi:10.1073/pnas.1812535116Ardid, S., & Wang, X.-J. (2013). A Tweaking Principle for Executive Control: Neuronal Circuit Mechanism for Rule-Based Task Switching and Conflict Resolution. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(50), 19504-19517. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1356-13.2013Ardid, S., Wang, X.-J., & Compte, A. (2007). An Integrated Microcircuit Model of Attentional Processing in the Neocortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(32), 8486-8495. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1145-07.2007Ardid, S., Wang, X.-J., Gomez-Cabrero, D., & Compte, A. (2010). Reconciling Coherent Oscillation with Modulationof Irregular Spiking Activity in Selective Attention:Gamma-Range Synchronization between Sensoryand Executive Cortical Areas. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(8), 2856-2870. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4222-09.2010Baddeley, A. D. and Hitch, G. (1974). Working Memory. In Bower, G.H., editor, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, volume 8, pages 47–89. Academic Press.Badre, D., & Frank, M. J. (2011). Mechanisms of Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning in Cortico-Striatal Circuits 2: Evidence from fMRI. Cerebral Cortex, 22(3), 527-536. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr117Barbas, H. (2015). General Cortical and Special Prefrontal Connections: Principles from Structure to Function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 38(1), 269-289. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-071714-033936Bhandari, A., & Badre, D. (2018). Learning and transfer of working memory gating policies. Cognition, 172, 89-100. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.001Brette, R., & Guigon, E. (2003). Reliability of Spike Timing Is a General Property of Spiking Model Neurons. Neural Computation, 15(2), 279-308. doi:10.1162/089976603762552924Börgers, C., & Kopell, N. (2005). Effects of Noisy Drive on Rhythms in Networks of Excitatory and Inhibitory Neurons. Neural Computation, 17(3), 557-608. doi:10.1162/0899766053019908Brincat, S. L., & Miller, E. K. (2016). Prefrontal Cortex Networks Shift from External to Internal Modes during Learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(37), 9739-9754. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0274-16.2016Buschman, T. J., Denovellis, E. L., Diogo, C., Bullock, D., & Miller, E. K. (2012). Synchronous Oscillatory Neural Ensembles for Rules in the Prefrontal Cortex. Neuron, 76(4), 838-846. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.029Cannon, J., McCarthy, M. M., Lee, S., Lee, J., Börgers, C., Whittington, M. A., & Kopell, N. (2013). Neurosystems: brain rhythms and cognitive processing. European Journal of Neuroscience, 39(5), 705-719. doi:10.1111/ejn.12453Cho, R. Y., Konecky, R. O., & Carter, C. S. (2006). Impairments in frontal cortical   synchrony and cognitive control in schizophrenia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(52), 19878-19883. doi:10.1073/pnas.0609440103Compte, A. (2000). Synaptic Mechanisms and Network Dynamics Underlying Spatial Working Memory in a Cortical Network Model. Cerebral Cortex, 10(9), 910-923. doi:10.1093/cercor/10.9.910DeFelipe, J. (1997). Types of neurons, synaptic connections and chemical characteristics of cells immunoreactive for calbindin-D28K, parvalbumin and calretinin in the neocortex. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy, 14(1), 1-19. doi:10.1016/s0891-0618(97)10013-8Douglas, R. J., & Martin, K. A. C. (2004). NEURONAL CIRCUITS OF THE NEOCORTEX. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27(1), 419-451. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144152Durstewitz, D., & Seamans, J. K. (2002). The computational role of dopamine D1 receptors in working memory. Neural Networks, 15(4-6), 561-572. doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(02)00049-7Durstewitz, D., Seamans, J. K., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Dopamine-Mediated Stabilization of Delay-Period Activity in a Network Model of Prefrontal Cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83(3), 1733-1750. doi:10.1152/jn.2000.83.3.1733Frank, M. J., & Badre, D. (2011). Mechanisms of Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning in Corticostriatal Circuits 1: Computational Analysis. Cerebral Cortex, 22(3), 509-526. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr114FRANK, M. J., LOUGHRY, B., & O’REILLY, R. C. (2001). Interactions between frontal cortex and basal ganglia in working memory: A computational model. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 1(2), 137-160. doi:10.3758/cabn.1.2.137Hasselmo, M. E., & Stern, C. E. (2018). A network model of behavioural performance in a rule learning task. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1744), 20170275. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0275Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735-1780. doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735Kaski, S., & Kohonen, T. (1994). Winner-take-all networks for physiological models of competitive learning. Neural Networks, 7(6-7), 973-984. doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(05)80154-6Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A.W., Cho, R.Y., Stenger, V.A., and Carter, C.S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science (New York, N.Y.), 303(5660):1023–1026.Komorowski, R. W., Garcia, C. G., Wilson, A., Hattori, S., Howard, M. W., & Eichenbaum, H. (2013). Ventral Hippocampal Neurons Are Shaped by Experience to Represent Behaviorally Relevant Contexts. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(18), 8079-8087. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5458-12.2013Kriete, T., & Noelle, D. C. (2011). Generalisation benefits of output gating in a model of prefrontal cortex. Connection Science, 23(2), 119-129. doi:10.1080/09540091.2011.569881Kritzer, M. F., & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1995). Intrinsic circuit organization of the major layers and sublayers of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the rhesus monkey. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 359(1), 131-143. doi:10.1002/cne.903590109Levitt, J. B., Lewis, D. A., Yoshioka, T., & Lund, J. S. (1993). Topography of pyramidal neuron intrinsic connections in macaque monkey prefrontal cortex (areas 9 and 46). The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 338(3), 360-376. doi:10.1002/cne.903380304Lundqvist, M., Compte, A., & Lansner, A. (2010). Bistable, Irregular Firing and Population Oscillations in a Modular Attractor Memory Network. PLoS Computational Biology, 6(6), e1000803. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000803Lundqvist, M., Herman, P., Warden, M. R., Brincat, S. L., & Miller, E. K. (2018). Gamma and beta bursts during working memory readout suggest roles in its volitional control. Nature Communications, 9(1). doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02791-8Lundqvist, M., Rose, J., Herman, P., Brincat, S. L., Buschman, T. J., & Miller, E. K. (2016). Gamma and Beta Bursts Underlie Working Memory. Neuron, 90(1), 152-164. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.02.028Mante, V., Sussillo, D., Shenoy, K. V., & Newsome, W. T. (2013). Context-dependent computation by recurrent dynamics in prefrontal cortex. Nature, 503(7474), 78-84. doi:10.1038/nature12742Melrose, R. J., Poulin, R. M., & Stern, C. E. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the role of the basal ganglia in reasoning. Brain Research, 1142, 146-158. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.01.060Miller, E. K. (2000). The prefontral cortex and cognitive control. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 1(1), 59-65. doi:10.1038/35036228O’Reilly, R. C., & Frank, M. J. (2006). Making Working Memory Work: A Computational Model of Learning in the Prefrontal Cortex and Basal Ganglia. Neural Computation, 18(2), 283-328. doi:10.1162/089976606775093909Parnaudeau, S., O’Neill, P.-K., Bolkan, S. S., Ward, R. D., Abbas, A. I., Roth, B. L., … Kellendonk, C. (2013). Inhibition of Mediodorsal Thalamus Disrupts Thalamofrontal Connectivity and Cognition. Neuron, 77(6), 1151-1162. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.038Nunez, P. L., & Srinivasan, R. (2006). Electric fields of the Brain: The Neurophysics of EEG. Oxford University Press. Google-Books-ID: fUv54as56_8C.Renart, A., Rocha, J. d. l., Bartho, P., Hollender, L., Parga, N., Reyes, A., Harris, K. D. (2010). The Asynchronous State in Cortical Circuits. Science, 327(5965):587–590.Richardson, M. J. E., Brunel, N., & Hakim, V. (2003). From Subthreshold to Firing-Rate Resonance. Journal of Neurophysiology, 89(5), 2538-2554. doi:10.1152/jn.00955.2002Rotstein, H. G. (2017). Spiking Resonances In Models With The Same Slow Resonant And Fast Amplifying Currents But Different Subthreshold Dynamic Properties. bioRxiv, page 128611.Seamans, J. K., Lapish, C. C., & Durstewitz, D. (2008). Comparing the prefrontal cortex of rats and primates: Insights from electrophysiology. Neurotoxicity Research, 14(2-3), 249-262. doi:10.1007/bf03033814Shen, Z., Popov, V., Delahay, A. B., & Reder, L. M. (2017). Item strength affects working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 46(2), 204-215. doi:10.3758/s13421-017-0758-4Sherfey, J. S., Ardid, S., Hass, J., Hasselmo, M. E., & Kopell, N. J. (2018). Flexible resonance in prefrontal networks with strong feedback inhibition. PLOS Computational Biology, 14(8), e1006357. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006357Sherfey, J. S., Soplata, A. E., Ardid, S., Roberts, E. A., Stanley, D. A., Pittman-Polletta, B.R., and Kopell, N.J. (2018b). DynaSim: A MATLAB Toolbox for Neural Modeling and Simulation. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 12.Siegel, M., Warden, M. R., & Miller, E. K. (2009). Phase-dependent neuronal coding of objects in short-term memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(50), 21341-21346. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908193106Tegnér, J., Compte, A., & Wang, X.-J. (2002). The dynamical stability of reverberatory neural circuits. Biological Cybernetics, 87(5-6), 471-481. doi:10.1007/s00422-002-0363-9Tzur, G., & Berger, A. (2009). Fast and slow brain rhythms in rule/expectation violation tasks: Focusing on evaluation processes by excluding motor action. Behavioural Brain Research, 198(2), 420-428. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.11.041Zhu, H., Paschalidis, I. C., Chang, A., Stern, C. E., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2020). A neural circuit model for a contextual association task inspired by recommender systems. Hippocampus, 30(4), 384-395. doi:10.1002/hipo.23194Zhu, H., Paschalidis, I. C., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2018). Neural circuits for learning context-dependent associations of stimuli. Neural Networks, 107, 48-60. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2018.07.01

Integration of Spiking Neural Networks for Understanding Interval Timing

The ability to perceive the passage of time in the seconds-to-minutes range is a vital and ubiquitous characteristic of life. This ability allows organisms to make behavioral changes based on the temporal contingencies between stimuli and the potential rewards they predict. While the psychophysical manifestations of time perception have been well-characterized, many aspects of its underlying biology are still poorly understood. A major contributor to this is limitations of current in vivo techniques that do not allow for proper assessment of the di signaling over micro-, meso- and macroscopic spatial scales. Alternatively, the integration of biologically inspired artificial neural networks (ANNs) based on the dynamics and cyto-architecture of brain regions associated with time perception can help mitigate these limitations and, in conjunction, provide a powerful tool for progressing research in the field. To this end, this chapter aims to: (1) provide insight into the biological complexity of interval timing, (2) outline limitations in our ability to accurately assess these neural mechanisms in vivo, and (3) demonstrate potential application of ANNs for better understanding the biological underpinnings of temporal processing

Modelling human choices: MADeM and decision‑making

Research supported by FAPESP 2015/50122-0 and DFG-GRTK 1740/2. RP and AR are also part of the Research, Innovation and Dissemination Center for Neuromathematics FAPESP grant (2013/07699-0). RP is supported by a FAPESP scholarship (2013/25667-8). ACR is partially supported by a CNPq fellowship (grant 306251/2014-0)

Unique contributions of parvalbumin and cholinergic interneurons in organizing striatal networks during movement

Published in final edited form as: Nat Neurosci. 2019 April ; 22(4): 586–597. doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0341-3.Striatal pavalbumin (PV) and cholinergic (CHI) interneurons are poised to play major roles in behavior by coordinating the networks of medium spiny cells that relay motor output. However, the small numbers and scattered distribution of these cells has made it difficult to directly assess their contribution to activity in networks of MSNs during behavior. Here, we build upon recent improvements in single cell calcium imaging combined with optogenetics to test the capacity of PVs and CHIs to affect MSN activity and behavior in mice engaged in voluntarily locomotion. We find that PVs and CHIs have unique effects on MSN activity and dissociable roles in supporting movement. PV cells facilitate movement by refining the activation of MSN networks responsible for movement execution. CHIs, in contrast, synchronize activity within MSN networks to signal the end of a movement bout. These results provide new insights into the striatal network activity that supports movement.Accepted manuscrip

29th Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS*2020

Meeting abstracts This publication was funded by OCNS. The Supplement Editors declare that they have no competing interests. Virtual | 18-22 July 202

26th Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting (CNS*2017): Part 3 - Meeting Abstracts - Antwerp, Belgium. 15–20 July 2017

This work was produced as part of the activities of FAPESP Research,\ud Disseminations and Innovation Center for Neuromathematics (grant\ud 2013/07699-0, S. Paulo Research Foundation). NLK is supported by a\ud FAPESP postdoctoral fellowship (grant 2016/03855-5). ACR is partially\ud supported by a CNPq fellowship (grant 306251/2014-0)