Reward modulates the effect of visual cortical microstimulation on perceptual decisions

  1. Nela Cicmil  Is a corresponding author
  2. Bruce G Cumming
  3. Andrew J Parker
  4. Kristine Krug
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. National Eye Institute, United States

Abstract

Effective perceptual decisions rely upon combining sensory information with knowledge of the rewards available for different choices. However, it is not known where reward signals interact with the multiple stages of the perceptual decision-making pathway and by what mechanisms this may occur. We combined electrical microstimulation of functionally specific groups of neurons in visual area V5/MT with performance-contingent reward manipulation, while monkeys performed a visual discrimination task. Microstimulation was less effective in shifting perceptual choices towards the stimulus preferences of the stimulated neurons when available reward was larger. Psychophysical control experiments showed this result was not explained by a selective change in response strategy on microstimulated trials. A bounded accumulation decision model, applied to analyse behavioural performance, revealed that the interaction of expected reward with microstimulation can be explained if expected reward modulates a sensory representation stage of perceptual decision-making, in addition to the better-known effects at the integration stage.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nela Cicmil

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    nela.cicmil@dpag.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Bruce G Cumming

    Lab of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Andrew J Parker

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kristine Krug

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Matteo Carandini, University College London, United Kingdom

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal experimentation was conducted at two locations: University of Oxford, UK, and National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA. At Oxford, all procedures were approved by the United Kingdom Home Office, and strictly complied with the restrictions and provisions contained in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986. At NIH, all procedures strictly complied with US Public Health Service policy on the humane care and use of animals, and the protocol was approved by the National Eye Institute (NEI) Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #NEI-567). Every effort was made to minimise potential sources of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to the animals involved in the study.

Version history

  1. Received: April 17, 2015
  2. Accepted: September 23, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 24, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 23, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 1,859
    views
  • 361
    downloads
  • 37
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Nela Cicmil
  2. Bruce G Cumming
  3. Andrew J Parker
  4. Kristine Krug
(2015)
Reward modulates the effect of visual cortical microstimulation on perceptual decisions
eLife 4:e07832.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07832

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07832

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Sanggeon Park, Yeowool Huh ... Jeiwon Cho
    Research Article

    The brain’s ability to appraise threats and execute appropriate defensive responses is essential for survival in a dynamic environment. Humans studies have implicated the anterior insular cortex (aIC) in subjective fear regulation and its abnormal activity in fear/anxiety disorders. However, the complex aIC connectivity patterns involved in regulating fear remain under investigated. To address this, we recorded single units in the aIC of freely moving male mice that had previously undergone auditory fear conditioning, assessed the effect of optogenetically activating specific aIC output structures in fear, and examined the organization of aIC neurons projecting to the specific structures with retrograde tracing. Single-unit recordings revealed that a balanced number of aIC pyramidal neurons’ activity either positively or negatively correlated with a conditioned tone-induced freezing (fear) response. Optogenetic manipulations of aIC pyramidal neuronal activity during conditioned tone presentation altered the expression of conditioned freezing. Neural tracing showed that non-overlapping populations of aIC neurons project to the amygdala or the medial thalamus, and the pathway bidirectionally modulated conditioned fear. Specifically, optogenetic stimulation of the aIC-amygdala pathway increased conditioned freezing, while optogenetic stimulation of the aIC-medial thalamus pathway decreased it. Our findings suggest that the balance of freezing-excited and freezing-inhibited neuronal activity in the aIC and the distinct efferent circuits interact collectively to modulate fear behavior.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jonathan S Tsay, Hyosub E Kim ... Richard B Ivry
    Review Article

    Motor learning is often viewed as a unitary process that operates outside of conscious awareness. This perspective has led to the development of sophisticated models designed to elucidate the mechanisms of implicit sensorimotor learning. In this review, we argue for a broader perspective, emphasizing the contribution of explicit strategies to sensorimotor learning tasks. Furthermore, we propose a theoretical framework for motor learning that consists of three fundamental processes: reasoning, the process of understanding action–outcome relationships; refinement, the process of optimizing sensorimotor and cognitive parameters to achieve motor goals; and retrieval, the process of inferring the context and recalling a control policy. We anticipate that this ‘3R’ framework for understanding how complex movements are learned will open exciting avenues for future research at the intersection between cognition and action.