Dynamic modulation of decision biases by Brainstem Arousal Systems

  1. Jan Willem de Gee  Is a corresponding author
  2. Olympia Colizoli
  3. Niels A Kloosterman
  4. Tomas Knapen
  5. Sander Nieuwenhuis
  6. Tobias H Donner  Is a corresponding author
  1. University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
  2. University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
  3. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands
  4. Leiden University, Netherlands

Abstract

Decision-makers often arrive at different choices when faced with repeated presentations of the same evidence. Variability of behavior is commonly attributed to noise in the brain’s decision-making machinery. We hypothesized that phasic responses of brainstem arousal systems are a significant source of this variability. We tracked pupil responses (a proxy of phasic arousal) during sensory-motor decisions in humans, across different sensory modalities and task protocols. Large pupil responses generally predicted a reduction in decision bias. Using fMRI, we showed that the pupil-linked bias reduction was (i) accompanied by a modulation of choice-encoding pattern signals in parietal and prefrontal cortex and (ii) predicted by phasic, pupil-linked responses of a number of neuromodulatory brainstem centers involved in the control of cortical arousal state, including the noradrenergic locus coeruleus. We conclude that phasic arousal suppresses decision bias on a trial-by-trial basis, thus accounting for a significant component of the variability of choice behavior.

Data availability

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jan Willem de Gee

    Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
    For correspondence
    jwdegee@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5875-8282
  2. Olympia Colizoli

    Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Niels A Kloosterman

    Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Tomas Knapen

    Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sander Nieuwenhuis

    Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2418-3879
  6. Tobias H Donner

    Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
    For correspondence
    t.donner@uke.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 936/Z1)

  • Tobias H Donner

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DO1240/3-1)

  • Tobias H Donner

Seventh Framework Programme (604102)

  • Tobias H Donner

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

Ethics

Human subjects: All subjects gave written informed consent, and consent to publish. The ethics committee of the Psychology Department of the University of Amsterdam approved the experiments (Id's: 2014-BC-3406; 2015-BC-4613; 2016-BC-6842).

Copyright

© 2017, de Gee 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

  • 5,791
    views
  • 1,070
    downloads
  • 239
    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. Jan Willem de Gee
  2. Olympia Colizoli
  3. Niels A Kloosterman
  4. Tomas Knapen
  5. Sander Nieuwenhuis
  6. Tobias H Donner
(2017)
Dynamic modulation of decision biases by Brainstem Arousal Systems
eLife 6:e23232.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23232

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23232

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Johannes Oppermann, Andrey Rozenberg ... Peter Hegemann
    Tools and Resources

    Channelrhodopsins (ChRs) are light-gated ion channels widely used to optically activate or silence selected electrogenic cells, such as individual brain neurons. Here, we describe identifying and characterizing a set of anion-conducting ChRs (ACRs) from diverse taxa and representing various branches of the ChR phylogenetic tree. The Mantoniella squamata ACR (MsACR1) showed high sensitivity to yellow-green light (λmax at 555 nm) and was further engineered for optogenetic applications. A single amino-acid substitution that mimicked red-light-sensitive rhodopsins like Chrimson shifted the photosensitivity 20 nm toward red light and accelerated photocurrent kinetics. Hence, it was named red and accelerated ACR, raACR. Both wild-type and mutant are capable optical silencers at low light intensities in mouse neurons in vitro and in vivo, while raACR offers a higher temporal resolution.

    1. Neuroscience
    Ilya A Rybak, Natalia A Shevtsova ... Alain Frigon
    Research Article

    Locomotion in mammals is directly controlled by the spinal neuronal network, operating under the control of supraspinal signals and somatosensory feedback that interact with each other. However, the functional architecture of the spinal locomotor network, its operation regimes, and the role of supraspinal and sensory feedback in different locomotor behaviors, including at different speeds, remain unclear. We developed a computational model of spinal locomotor circuits receiving supraspinal drives and limb sensory feedback that could reproduce multiple experimental data obtained in intact and spinal-transected cats during tied-belt and split-belt treadmill locomotion. We provide evidence that the spinal locomotor network operates in different regimes depending on locomotor speed. In an intact system, at slow speeds (<0.4 m/s), the spinal network operates in a non-oscillating state-machine regime and requires sensory feedback or external inputs for phase transitions. Removing sensory feedback related to limb extension prevents locomotor oscillations at slow speeds. With increasing speed and supraspinal drives, the spinal network switches to a flexor-driven oscillatory regime and then to a classical half-center regime. Following spinal transection, the model predicts that the spinal network can only operate in the state-machine regime. Our results suggest that the spinal network operates in different regimes for slow exploratory and fast escape locomotor behaviors, making use of different control mechanisms.