Omission responses in local field potentials in rat auditory cortex

Background Non-invasive recordings of gross neural activity in humans often show responses to omitted stimuli in steady trains of identical stimuli. This has been taken as evidence for the neural coding of prediction or prediction error. However, evidence for such omission responses from invasive recordings of cellular-scale responses in animal models is scarce. Here, we sought to characterise omission responses using extracellular recordings in the auditory cortex of anaesthetised rats. We profiled omission responses across local field potentials (LFP), analogue multiunit activity (AMUA), and single/multi-unit spiking activity, using stimuli that were fixed-rate trains of acoustic noise bursts where 5% of bursts were randomly omitted. Results Significant omission responses were observed in LFP and AMUA signals, but not in spiking activity. These omission responses had a lower amplitude and longer latency than burst-evoked sensory responses, and omission response amplitude increased as a function of the number of preceding bursts. Conclusions Together, our findings show that omission responses are most robustly observed in LFP and AMUA signals (relative to spiking activity). This has implications for models of cortical processing that require many neurons to encode prediction errors in their spike output

“What” and “when” predictions modulate auditory processing in a mutually congruent manner

Introduction: Extracting regularities from ongoing stimulus streams to form predictions is crucial for adaptive behavior. Such regularities exist in terms of the content of the stimuli and their timing, both of which are known to interactively modulate sensory processing. In real-world stimulus streams such as music, regularities can occur at multiple levels, both in terms of contents (e.g., predictions relating to individual notes vs. their more complex groups) and timing (e.g., pertaining to timing between intervals vs. the overall beat of a musical phrase). However, it is unknown whether the brain integrates predictions in a manner that is mutually congruent (e.g., if “beat” timing predictions selectively interact with “what” predictions falling on pulses which define the beat), and whether integrating predictions in different timing conditions relies on dissociable neural correlates. Methods: To address these questions, our study manipulated “what” and “when” predictions at different levels – (local) interval-defining and (global) beat-defining – within the same stimulus stream, while neural activity was recorded using electroencephalogram (EEG) in participants (N = 20) performing a repetition detection task. Results: Our results reveal that temporal predictions based on beat or interval timing modulated mismatch responses to violations of “what” predictions happening at the predicted time points, and that these modulations were shared between types of temporal predictions in terms of the spatiotemporal distribution of EEG signals. Effective connectivity analysis using dynamic causal modeling showed that the integration of “what” and “when” predictions selectively increased connectivity at relatively late cortical processing stages, between the superior temporal gyrus and the fronto-parietal network. Discussion: Taken together, these results suggest that the brain integrates different predictions with a high degree of mutual congruence, but in a shared and distributed cortical network. This finding contrasts with recent studies indicating separable mechanisms for beat-based and memory-based predictive processing

Omission responses in local field potentials in rat auditory cortex

Abstract Background Non-invasive recordings of gross neural activity in humans often show responses to omitted stimuli in steady trains of identical stimuli. This has been taken as evidence for the neural coding of prediction or prediction error. However, evidence for such omission responses from invasive recordings of cellular-scale responses in animal models is scarce. Here, we sought to characterise omission responses using extracellular recordings in the auditory cortex of anaesthetised rats. We profiled omission responses across local field potentials (LFP), analogue multiunit activity (AMUA), and single/multi-unit spiking activity, using stimuli that were fixed-rate trains of acoustic noise bursts where 5% of bursts were randomly omitted. Results Significant omission responses were observed in LFP and AMUA signals, but not in spiking activity. These omission responses had a lower amplitude and longer latency than burst-evoked sensory responses, and omission response amplitude increased as a function of the number of preceding bursts. Conclusions Together, our findings show that omission responses are most robustly observed in LFP and AMUA signals (relative to spiking activity). This has implications for models of cortical processing that require many neurons to encode prediction errors in their spike output