9 research outputs found
Spontaneous Local Gamma Oscillation Selectively Enhances Neural Network Responsiveness
Synchronized oscillation is very commonly observed in many neuronal systems and
might play an important role in the response properties of the system. We have
studied how the spontaneous oscillatory activity affects the responsiveness of a
neuronal network, using a neural network model of the visual cortex built from
Hodgkin-Huxley type excitatory (E-) and inhibitory (I-) neurons. When the
isotropic local E-I and I-E synaptic connections were sufficiently strong, the
network commonly generated gamma frequency oscillatory firing patterns in
response to random feed-forward (FF) input spikes. This spontaneous oscillatory
network activity injects a periodic local current that could amplify a weak
synaptic input and enhance the network's responsiveness. When E-E
connections were added, we found that the strength of oscillation can be
modulated by varying the FF input strength without any changes in single neuron
properties or interneuron connectivity. The response modulation is proportional
to the oscillation strength, which leads to self-regulation such that the
cortical network selectively amplifies various FF inputs according to its
strength, without requiring any adaptation mechanism. We show that this
selective cortical amplification is controlled by E-E cell interactions. We also
found that this response amplification is spatially localized, which suggests
that the responsiveness modulation may also be spatially selective. This
suggests a generalized mechanism by which neural oscillatory activity can
enhance the selectivity of a neural network to FF inputs
Localization of the oscillation activity effect in large cortical network (2 mm by 2 mm).
<p>(A) In the center region (G1), cortical gamma oscillation is activated by
the higher FF input rate (40 spikes/s). Surrounding neurons are divided
into groups (G2∼G11) by their distance from the center, and
spontaneous oscillation is inactivated due to the lower FF input rate
(10 spikes/s). The control group (G<sub>∞</sub>) property was
separately achieved by a uniformly low FF input rate (10 spikes/s)
network, as an approximation of infinitely distant neurons.
Responsiveness and response delay measurements show that the properties
of surrounding neurons (G2∼G6) are continuously distributed
between G1 to G<sub>∞</sub> (insets), and distant groups
(G7∼G11) show almost the same property as
G<sub>∞</sub>. (B) For FF inputs weaker than the FF response
threshold (<30 µS/cm<sup>2</sup>), responsiveness and
response delay changes gradually with the distance from the G1 boundary.
The G2 property is very similar to that of G1, while G11 properties are
almost the same as G<sub>∞</sub> properties. For stronger
inputs (>30 µS/cm<sup>2</sup>), surrounding regions are
not much influenced by G1 oscillation. Most surrounding group properties
are similar to those of G<sub>∞</sub>, showing clear
localization of oscillation effect. For all FF input strength, the
influence of oscillation is certainly restricted within local area. (C)
The gamma oscillation effect localization is determined by the range of
single neuron synaptic connections. The E- and I- synaptic connections
of each single neuron are varied from their initial value
(100%, radius of 200 µm for E- cells, 100
µm for I- cells), to 50% (100 µm for E-
cells, 50 µm for I- cells). The ratio of E- to I- connections
range (2∶1) was kept the same in all cases. The area of
surrounding regions affected by the oscillation in the center region
shrinks, as the E- and I- synaptic connection range is reduced. For
comparisons, cortical responsiveness is normalized to the value of the
center region in each case.</p
Modification of oscillation strength by various FF input strengths.
<p>(A) Cross-correlograms of cortical spikes. (i), (ii) In the OA network,
the relative strength of gamma oscillation changes according to the FF
input strength. The oscillation is strongest when FF input strength is
35∼40 µS/cm<sup>2</sup>, and gradually diminishes as
input strength increases. (iii) The E-I firing pattern shows that
cortical oscillation is significantly modulated by the E-E interaction,
and two different peaks coexist (‘spike doublets’,
* and **). For a stronger FF input (50
µS/cm<sup>2</sup>), the E-I firing pattern shows only the
normal gamma phase feature (***). Cortical
oscillation is almost disappears for very strong FF input (80
µS/cm<sup>2</sup>). (B) The responsiveness difference
between the OA network and the FF network changes from positive (for
weak FF inputsthresh) to negative (for moderate FF
inputs>S<sub>thresh</sub>), and becomes zero (for strong FF
inputs). Its absolute value (or cortical response modulation) is almost
proportional to the strength of the gamma oscillation at each input
strength (except at the FF response threshold, ∼30
µS/cm<sup>2</sup>, where the difference changes from
positive to negative). Also the difference in response delay between the
OA network and the FF network is proportional to the strength of the
gamma oscillation, which is controlled by the FF input strength.</p
Various cortical activity states.
<p>Raster plot of cortical output spikes, instantaneous FF input and
cortical output firing rate, and cross-correlogram of cortical output
spikes. (A) (i), (ii) When cortical synaptic connections are turned off,
there is no correlated cortical activity. The output firing rate
directly follows the FF input rate pattern. (iii) The E-I firing phase
shows no correlation. (B) (i), (ii) When cortical connections are turned
on, both E- and I- network neurons show oscillation patterns for a wide
range of FF input and cortical parameters. This spike raster plot shows
grating-like patterns, and the output firing rate oscillates with the
gamma band frequency. The cross-correlogram pattern also shows a clear
oscillation pattern. (iii) In this case, the E- and I- cells fire with
little phase difference. This E-I firing pattern is different from
normal gamma oscillation in the E-I phase, indicating that the
contribution of the E-E interaction is significant in this case (see
<a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000342#pcbi-1000342-g001" target="_blank">Figure 1E</a>). (C)
(i), (ii) The oscillation-inactive state can be achieved simply by
lowering the FF input rate. The E-E cross-correlogram shows hardly any
oscillation pattern, even though cortical connectivity is kept the same
as in (B) and I- cells show oscillation patterns. The FF Input rate was
40 spikes/s for (A) and (B), and 10 spikes/s for (C). (iii) The E-I
firing phase shows no clear correlation as in (A) (iii).</p
The E-I firing phase modulation by E-E coupling.
<p>Raster plot of E- and I- cells spikes (A) and spike trains in sample E-
and I- cells (B). Only excitatory connections (E-E and E-I) are turned
on, while inhibitory connections (I-E and I-I) are turned off. (A) At
first, a small number of E- cells fire by FF input (i). These E- spikes
stimulate nearby E- and I- cells by E-E and E-I connections
respectively. Since the E-I connection is stronger than the E-E
connection in this model, I- cells fire (ii) before E- cells fire (iii)
in this cortical drive. The E- cells firing by means of the E-E
interactions continues for a while, due to the self-feedback in the E-E
interaction loop. As a result of this ‘lagged’
synchronization, the oscillation frequency is reduced. This duration of
excitation causes the second firing of I- cells (iv) to make a
‘spike doublet’. The interval between the two spikes
in a spike doublet is determined by the refractory period of I- cells.
The first spike of a doublet forms the ‘E-E interaction
modulated phase’ in the E-I firing phase, while the second
spike forms the ‘normal’ gamma E-I phase. (B) I-
cells occasionally produce ‘spike doublets’. The
first I- spike in a doublet usually fires before nearby E- cells spike,
while the second I- spike usually follows the E- spike. If inhibitory
connections (I-E and I-I) are turned on, E- cells fire less than once in
each cycle, and I- spike doublets appear less frequently.</p
Oscillation modulation without E-E interaction.
<p>(i) (ii) The cortical oscillation strength is weaker, and far less
modified by the FF input, compared with <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000342#pcbi-1000342-g005" target="_blank">Figure 5A</a>. The oscillation pattern in
E- cells disappears for both weak and strong FF inputs. (iii) The
relative E-I firing phase does not change for weak inputs in this case,
unlike that shown in <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000342#pcbi-1000342-g005" target="_blank">Figure
5A</a> (iii).</p
Responsiveness and response delay of each cortical state.
<p>(A) The FF network has a step-like shape response function, with a
threshold value of ∼30 µS/cm<sup>2</sup>. The OA
network shows a more gradual change in its response function with a
plateau near the FF response threshold. Its responsiveness for weak FF
inputs is much stronger than for the other two cases. The OI network
shows little difference in its response function from that of the FF
network. (B) The cortical response to a single FF input spike is fastest
in the OA network for all input strengths. For weak FF inputs, the
average response delay is much shorter in the OA network than in other
network states. As the FF input strength increases, the difference
between OA and OI networks becomes smaller. The FF network always shows
the largest delay time, even for very strong FF inputs.</p
Responsiveness to weak FF inputs is enhanced by spontaneous cortical gamma frequency oscillation.
<p>(A) (i) Cortical connections are turned off (FF). Neurons receive only FF
inputs. Each weak (<30 µS/cm<sup>2</sup>) FF input
raises some current and voltage fluctuation but cannot cause a cortical
output spike unless two or more inputs are closely paired
(***). (ii) Cortical connections are turned on
(OA). In the presence of cortical gamma oscillation, each neuron
receives cortical spikes from nearby neurons. Since cortical activity
has the gamma frequency oscillation pattern, each neuron is provided
with a periodic current fluctuation. This cortical current amplifies
weak FF inputs to drive output spikes (*). This response
enhancement depends on the phase of oscillation, so a FF input at an
oscillation node is not amplified (**). (B) The response
probability of entire (paired+unpaired) and single (unpaired)
FF inputs (weak input strength ∼25 µS/cm<sup>2</sup>)
for different cortical activity states. In both cases (paired and
unpaired), input spikes were chosen only if there were no other spikes
within 20 ms before each input. Paired inputs have another input within
20 ms after each input. Cortical output spikes were counted as is their
relative timing to each input spike were 0 ms). All three cases show a
non-zero response peak for the entire input. For unpaired input, only
the OA network can respond. In each correlogram, response probability
was normalized by the number of proper (entire or unpaired) FF input
spikes. For the responsiveness calculation (<a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000342#pcbi-1000342-g003" target="_blank">Figure 3A</a>), each peak area was
measured above background activity level (dashed line). Background
activities were measured within a window from −10 ms to 0
ms.</p