A saturation hypothesis to explain both enhanced and impaired learning with enhanced plasticity

Abstract

Across many studies, animals with enhanced synaptic plasticity exhibit either enhanced or impaired learning, raising a conceptual puzzle: how enhanced plasticity can yield opposite learning outcomes? Here we show that recent history of experience can determine whether mice with enhanced plasticity exhibit enhanced or impaired learning in response to the same training. Mice with enhanced cerebellar LTD, due to double knockout (DKO) of MHCI H2-Kb/H2-Db (KbDb-/-), exhibited oculomotor learning deficits. However, the same mice exhibited enhanced learning after appropriate pre-training. Theoretical analysis revealed that synapses with history-dependent learning rules could recapitulate the data, and suggested that saturation may be a key factor limiting the ability of enhanced plasticity to enhance learning. Moreover, optogenetic stimulation designed to saturate LTD produced the same impairment in WT as observed in DKO mice. Overall, our results suggest that recent history of activity and the threshold for synaptic plasticity conspire to effect divergent learning outcomes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. TD Barbara Nguyen-Vu

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    ngbabs@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4708-1982
  2. Grace Q Zhao

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Subhaneil Lahiri

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2028-6635
  4. Rhea R Kimpo

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Hanmi Lee

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Surya Ganguli

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Carla J Shatz

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Jennifer L Raymond

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    jenr@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    Jennifer L Raymond, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Funding

National Institutes of Health (RO1DC04154,RO1NS072406,R21NS057488,P30DC10363)

  • Jennifer L Raymond

National Science Foundation (Graduate Research Fellowship)

  • TD Barbara Nguyen-Vu

Burroughs Wellcome Fund

  • Surya Ganguli

Genentech Foundation

  • Hanmi Lee

James S. McDonnell Foundation

  • Jennifer L Raymond

National Institutes of Health (F31DC010547)

  • TD Barbara Nguyen-Vu

National Institutes of Health (F32NS058060)

  • Grace Q Zhao

National Institutes of Health (RO1MH07166)

  • Carla J Shatz

National Institutes of Health (NS069375)

  • Jennifer L Raymond

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures were approved by the Administrative Panel on Laboratory Animal Care at Stanford University under animal care and use committee (IACUC) Protocol #9143, titled 'Vestibular and Visual Control of Eye Movements in Mice'.

Copyright

© 2017, Nguyen-Vu 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

  • 3,201
    views
  • 616
    downloads
  • 19
    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. TD Barbara Nguyen-Vu
  2. Grace Q Zhao
  3. Subhaneil Lahiri
  4. Rhea R Kimpo
  5. Hanmi Lee
  6. Surya Ganguli
  7. Carla J Shatz
  8. Jennifer L Raymond
(2017)
A saturation hypothesis to explain both enhanced and impaired learning with enhanced plasticity
eLife 6:e20147.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20147

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20147

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Victoria JH Ritvo, Alex Nguyen ... Kenneth A Norman
    Research Article

    What determines when neural representations of memories move together (integrate) or apart (differentiate)? Classic supervised learning models posit that, when two stimuli predict similar outcomes, their representations should integrate. However, these models have recently been challenged by studies showing that pairing two stimuli with a shared associate can sometimes cause differentiation, depending on the parameters of the study and the brain region being examined. Here, we provide a purely unsupervised neural network model that can explain these and other related findings. The model can exhibit integration or differentiation depending on the amount of activity allowed to spread to competitors — inactive memories are not modified, connections to moderately active competitors are weakened (leading to differentiation), and connections to highly active competitors are strengthened (leading to integration). The model also makes several novel predictions — most importantly, that when differentiation occurs as a result of this unsupervised learning mechanism, it will be rapid and asymmetric, and it will give rise to anticorrelated representations in the region of the brain that is the source of the differentiation. Overall, these modeling results provide a computational explanation for a diverse set of seemingly contradictory empirical findings in the memory literature, as well as new insights into the dynamics at play during learning.

    1. Neuroscience
    Marine Schimel, Ta-Chu Kao, Guillaume Hennequin
    Research Article

    During delayed ballistic reaches, motor areas consistently display movement-specific activity patterns prior to movement onset. It is unclear why these patterns arise: while they have been proposed to seed an initial neural state from which the movement unfolds, recent experiments have uncovered the presence and necessity of ongoing inputs during movement, which may lessen the need for careful initialization. Here, we modeled the motor cortex as an input-driven dynamical system, and we asked what the optimal way to control this system to perform fast delayed reaches is. We find that delay-period inputs consistently arise in an optimally controlled model of M1. By studying a variety of network architectures, we could dissect and predict the situations in which it is beneficial for a network to prepare. Finally, we show that optimal input-driven control of neural dynamics gives rise to multiple phases of preparation during reach sequences, providing a novel explanation for experimentally observed features of monkey M1 activity in double reaching.