Suppression and facilitation of human neural responses

  1. Michael-Paul Schallmo  Is a corresponding author
  2. Alexander M Kale
  3. Rachel Millin
  4. Anastasia V Flevaris
  5. Zoran Brkanac
  6. Richard AE Edden
  7. Raphael A Bernier
  8. Scott Murray
  1. University of Washington, United States
  2. Johns Hopkins University, United States

Abstract

Efficient neural processing depends on regulating responses through suppression and facilitation of neural activity. Utilizing a well-known visual motion paradigm that evokes behavioral suppression and facilitation, and combining 5 different methodologies (behavioral psychophysics, computational modeling, functional MRI, pharmacology, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy), we provide evidence that challenges commonly held assumptions about the neural processes underlying suppression and facilitation. We show that: 1) both suppression and facilitation can emerge from a single, computational principle - divisive normalization; there is no need to invoke separate neural mechanisms, 2) neural suppression and facilitation in the motion-selective area MT mirror perception, but strong suppression also occurs in earlier visual areas, and 3) suppression is not primarily driven by GABA-mediated inhibition. Thus, while commonly used spatial suppression paradigms may provide insight into neural response magnitudes in visual areas, they should not be used to infer neural inhibition.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Michael-Paul Schallmo

    Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    schallmo@uw.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8252-8607
  2. Alexander M Kale

    Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7668-2800
  3. Rachel Millin

    Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Anastasia V Flevaris

    Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Zoran Brkanac

    Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Richard AE Edden

    Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Raphael A Bernier

    Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Scott Murray

    Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

National Eye Institute (F32 EY025121)

  • Michael-Paul Schallmo
  • Scott Murray

National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH106520)

  • Raphael A Bernier
  • Scott Murray

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (P41 EB015909)

  • Richard AE Edden

National Eye Institute (T32 EY007031)

  • Michael-Paul Schallmo
  • Scott Murray

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01 EB016089)

  • Richard AE Edden

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Nicholas Turk-Browne, Princeton University, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: Subjects provided written informed consent prior to participation and were compensated for their time. All experimental procedures were approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (protocol #s: 556, 1678, 28148), and conformed to the ethical principles for research on human subjects from the Declaration of Helsinki.

Version history

  1. Received: July 11, 2017
  2. Accepted: January 26, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 29, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 14, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Schallmo 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

  • 2,425
    views
  • 321
    downloads
  • 47
    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. Michael-Paul Schallmo
  2. Alexander M Kale
  3. Rachel Millin
  4. Anastasia V Flevaris
  5. Zoran Brkanac
  6. Richard AE Edden
  7. Raphael A Bernier
  8. Scott Murray
(2018)
Suppression and facilitation of human neural responses
eLife 7:e30334.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30334

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30334

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    MinHyuk Lee, Se Hoon Park ... KyeongJin Kang
    Research Article

    Establishing transepithelial ion disparities is crucial for sensory functions in animals. In insect sensory organs called sensilla, a transepithelial potential, known as the sensillum potential (SP), arises through active ion transport across accessory cells, sensitizing receptor neurons such as mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors. Because multiple receptor neurons are often co-housed in a sensillum and share SP, niche-prevalent overstimulation of single sensory neurons can compromise neighboring receptors by depleting SP. However, how such potential depletion is prevented to maintain sensory homeostasis remains unknown. Here, we find that the Ih-encoded hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channel bolsters the activity of bitter-sensing gustatory receptor neurons (bGRNs), albeit acting in sweet-sensing GRNs (sGRNs). For this task, HCN maintains SP despite prolonged sGRN stimulation induced by the diet mimicking their sweet feeding niche, such as overripe fruit. We present evidence that Ih-dependent demarcation of sGRN excitability is implemented to throttle SP consumption, which may have facilitated adaptation to a sweetness-dominated environment. Thus, HCN expressed in sGRNs serves as a key component of a simple yet versatile peripheral coding that regulates bitterness for optimal food intake in two contrasting ways: sweet-resilient preservation of bitter aversion and the previously reported sweet-dependent suppression of bitter taste.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Melody C Iacino, Taylor A Stowe ... Mark J Ferris
    Research Article Updated

    Adolescence is characterized by changes in reward-related behaviors, social behaviors, and decision-making. These behavioral changes are necessary for the transition into adulthood, but they also increase vulnerability to the development of a range of psychiatric disorders. Major reorganization of the dopamine system during adolescence is thought to underlie, in part, the associated behavioral changes and increased vulnerability. Here, we utilized fast scan cyclic voltammetry and microdialysis to examine differences in dopamine release as well as mechanisms that underlie differential dopamine signaling in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) core of adolescent (P28-35) and adult (P70-90) male rats. We show baseline differences between adult and adolescent-stimulated dopamine release in male rats, as well as opposite effects of the α6 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) on modulating dopamine release. The α6-selective blocker, α-conotoxin, increased dopamine release in early adolescent rats, but decreased dopamine release in rats beginning in middle adolescence and extending through adulthood. Strikingly, blockade of GABAA and GABAB receptors revealed that this α6-mediated increase in adolescent dopamine release requires NAc GABA signaling to occur. We confirm the role of α6 nAChRs and GABA in mediating this effect in vivo using microdialysis. Results herein suggest a multisynaptic mechanism potentially unique to the period of development that includes early adolescence, involving acetylcholine acting at α6-containing nAChRs to drive inhibitory GABA tone on dopamine release.