1. Neuroscience

Testing sensory evidence against mnemonic templates

  1. Nicholas Edward Myers  Is a corresponding author
  2. Gustavo Rohenkohl
  3. Valentin Wyart
  4. Mark W Woolrich
  5. Anna Christina Nobre
  6. Mark G Stokes
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09000
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Nicholas Edward Myers
  2. Gustavo Rohenkohl
  3. Valentin Wyart
  4. Mark W Woolrich
  5. Anna Christina Nobre
  6. Mark G Stokes
(2015)
Testing sensory evidence against mnemonic templates
eLife 4:e09000.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09000
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

Most perceptual decisions require comparisons between current input and an internal template. Classic studies propose that templates are encoded in sustained activity of sensory neurons. However, stimulus encoding is itself dynamic, tracing a complex trajectory through activity space. Which part of this trajectory is pre-activated to reflect the template? Here we recorded magneto- and electroencephalography during a visual target-detection task, and used pattern analyses to decode template, stimulus, and decision-variable representation. Our findings ran counter to the dominant model of sustained pre-activation. Instead, template information emerged transiently around stimulus onset and quickly subsided. Cross-generalization between stimulus and template coding, indicating a shared neural representation, occurred only briefly. Our results are compatible with the proposal that template representation relies on a matched filter, transforming input into task-appropriate output. This proposal was consistent with a signed difference response at the perceptual decision stage, which can be explained by a simple neural model.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nicholas Edward Myers

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    nicholas.myers@ohba.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Gustavo Rohenkohl

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. Valentin Wyart

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Mark W Woolrich

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Anna Christina Nobre

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. Mark G Stokes

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael J Frank, Brown University, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: Ethical approval for methods and procedures was obtained from the Central University Research Ethics Committee of the University of Oxford. All participants provided written, informed consent.

Version history

  1. Received: May 28, 2015
  2. Accepted: December 13, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 14, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 2, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Myers et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,244
    views
  • 787
    downloads
  • 94
    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. Nicholas Edward Myers
  2. Gustavo Rohenkohl
  3. Valentin Wyart
  4. Mark W Woolrich
  5. Anna Christina Nobre
  6. Mark G Stokes
(2015)
Testing sensory evidence against mnemonic templates
eLife 4:e09000.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09000

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09000

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience

    KIS counteracts PTBP2 and regulates alternative exon usage in neurons

    Marcos Moreno-Aguilera, Alba M Neher ... Carme Gallego
    Research Article Updated

    Alternative RNA splicing is an essential and dynamic process in neuronal differentiation and synapse maturation, and dysregulation of this process has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases. Recent studies have revealed the importance of RNA-binding proteins in the regulation of neuronal splicing programs. However, the molecular mechanisms involved in the control of these splicing regulators are still unclear. Here, we show that KIS, a kinase upregulated in the developmental brain, imposes a genome-wide alteration in exon usage during neuronal differentiation in mice. KIS contains a protein-recognition domain common to spliceosomal components and phosphorylates PTBP2, counteracting the role of this splicing factor in exon exclusion. At the molecular level, phosphorylation of unstructured domains within PTBP2 causes its dissociation from two co-regulators, Matrin3 and hnRNPM, and hinders the RNA-binding capability of the complex. Furthermore, KIS and PTBP2 display strong and opposing functional interactions in synaptic spine emergence and maturation. Taken together, our data uncover a post-translational control of splicing regulators that link transcriptional and alternative exon usage programs in neuronal development.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience

    Genetic Chimerism: Marmosets contain multitudes

    Kenneth Chiou, Noah Snyder-Mackler
    Insight

    Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the extent to which marmosets carry genetically distinct cells from their siblings.

    1. Neuroscience

    Episodic long-term memory formation during slow-wave sleep

    Flavio J Schmidig, Simon Ruch, Katharina Henke
    Research Article

    We are unresponsive during slow-wave sleep but continue monitoring external events for survival. Our brain wakens us when danger is imminent. If events are non-threatening, our brain might store them for later consideration to improve decision-making. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether novel vocabulary consisting of simultaneously played pseudowords and translation words are encoded/stored during sleep, and which neural-electrical events facilitate encoding/storage. An algorithm for brain-state-dependent stimulation selectively targeted word pairs to slow-wave peaks or troughs. Retrieval tests were given 12 and 36 hr later. These tests required decisions regarding the semantic category of previously sleep-played pseudowords. The sleep-played vocabulary influenced awake decision-making 36 hr later, if targeted to troughs. The words’ linguistic processing raised neural complexity. The words’ semantic-associative encoding was supported by increased theta power during the ensuing peak. Fast-spindle power ramped up during a second peak likely aiding consolidation. Hence, new vocabulary played during slow-wave sleep was stored and influenced decision-making days later.