» Articles » PMID: 20943928

Latent Inputs Improve Estimates of Neural Encoding in Motor Cortex

Overview
Journal J Neurosci
Specialty Neurology
Date 2010 Oct 15
PMID 20943928
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Typically, tuning curves in motor cortex are constructed by fitting the firing rate of a neuron as a function of some observed action, such as arm direction or movement speed. These tuning curves are then often interpreted causally as representing the firing rate as a function of the desired movement, or intent. This interpretation implicitly assumes that the motor command and the motor act are equivalent. However, any kind of perturbation, be it external, such as a visuomotor rotation, or internal, such as muscle fatigue, can create a difference between the motor intent and the action. How do we estimate the tuning curve under these conditions? Furthermore, it is well known that, during learning or adaptation, the relationship between neural firing and the observed movement can change. Does this change indicate a change in the inputs to the population, or a change in the way those inputs are processed? In this work, we present a method to infer the latent, unobserved inputs into the population of recorded neurons. Using data from nonhuman primates performing brain-computer interface experiments, we show that tuning curves based on these latent directions fit better than tuning curves based on actual movements. Finally, using data from a brain-computer interface learning experiment in which half of the units were decoded incorrectly, we demonstrate how this method might differentiate various aspects of motor adaptation.

Citing Articles

A theory of brain-computer interface learning via low-dimensional control.

Menendez J, Hennig J, Golub M, Oby E, Sadtler P, Batista A bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38712193 PMC: 11071278. DOI: 10.1101/2024.04.18.589952.


Calibrating Bayesian Decoders of Neural Spiking Activity.

Wei G, Tajik Mansouri Z, Wang X, Stevenson I J Neurosci. 2024; 44(18).

PMID: 38538143 PMC: 11063820. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2158-23.2024.


How learning unfolds in the brain: toward an optimization view.

Hennig J, Oby E, Losey D, Batista A, Yu B, Chase S Neuron. 2021; 109(23):3720-3735.

PMID: 34648749 PMC: 8639641. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.09.005.


Distributed processing of movement signaling.

Kennedy S, Schwartz A Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(52):26266-26273.

PMID: 31871180 PMC: 6936589. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1902296116.


Intrinsic Variable Learning for Brain-Machine Interface Control by Human Anterior Intraparietal Cortex.

Sakellaridi S, Christopoulos V, Aflalo T, Pejsa K, Rosario E, Ouellette D Neuron. 2019; 102(3):694-705.e3.

PMID: 30853300 PMC: 6922088. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.02.012.


References
1.
Chase S, Schwartz A, Kass R . Bias, optimal linear estimation, and the differences between open-loop simulation and closed-loop performance of spiking-based brain-computer interface algorithms. Neural Netw. 2009; 22(9):1203-13. PMC: 2783655. DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2009.05.005. View

2.
Evarts E . Relation of pyramidal tract activity to force exerted during voluntary movement. J Neurophysiol. 1968; 31(1):14-27. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1968.31.1.14. View

3.
Riehle A, Requin J . Monkey primary motor and premotor cortex: single-cell activity related to prior information about direction and extent of an intended movement. J Neurophysiol. 1989; 61(3):534-49. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1989.61.3.534. View

4.
Paz R, Vaadia E . Specificity of sensorimotor learning and the neural code: neuronal representations in the primary motor cortex. J Physiol Paris. 2005; 98(4-6):331-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2005.09.005. View

5.
Salinas E, Abbott L . Vector reconstruction from firing rates. J Comput Neurosci. 1994; 1(1-2):89-107. DOI: 10.1007/BF00962720. View