Abstract

Millions of neurons drive the activity of hundreds of muscles, meaning many different neural population activity patterns could generate the same movement. Studies have suggested that these redundant (i.e., behaviorally equivalent) activity patterns may be beneficial for neural computation. However, it is unknown what constraints may limit the selection of different redundant activity patterns. We leveraged a brain-computer interface, allowing us to define precisely which neural activity patterns were redundant. Rhesus monkeys made cursor movements by modulating neural activity in primary motor cortex. We attempted to predict the observed distribution of redundant neural activity. Principles inspired by work on muscular redundancy did not accurately predict these distributions. Surprisingly, the distributions of redundant neural activity and task-relevant activity were coupled, which enabled accurate predictions of the distributions of redundant activity. This suggests limits on the extent to which redundancy may be exploited by the brain for computation.

Data availability

Source data files have been provided for Figures 2-6. Code for analysis has been made available at https://github.com/mobeets/neural-redundancy-elife2018, with an MIT open source license (copy archived at https://github.com/elifesciences-publications/neural-redundancy-elife2018).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jay A Hennig

    Program in Neural Computation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7982-8553
  2. Matthew D Golub

    Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4508-0537
  3. Peter J Lund

    Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Patrick T Sadtler

    Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Emily R Oby

    Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kristin M Quick

    Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Stephen I Ryu

    Department of Neurosurgery, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara

    Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Aaron P Batista

    Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Byron M Yu

    Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2252-6938
  11. Steven M Chase

    Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    For correspondence
    schase@cmu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4450-6313

Funding

National Science Foundation (NCS BCS1533672)

  • Aaron P Batista
  • Byron M Yu
  • Steven M Chase

National Institutes of Health (R01 HD071686)

  • Aaron P Batista
  • Byron M Yu
  • Steven M Chase

National Science Foundation (Career award IOS1553252)

  • Steven M Chase

National Institutes of Health (CRCNS R01 NS105318)

  • Aaron P Batista
  • Byron M Yu

Craig H. Neilsen Foundation (280028)

  • Aaron P Batista
  • Byron M Yu
  • Steven M Chase

Simons Foundation (364994)

  • Byron M Yu

Pennsylvania Department of Health (Research Formula Grant SAP 4100077048)

  • Byron M Yu
  • Steven M Chase

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 animal handling procedures were approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #15096685) in accordance with NIH guidelines. All surgery was performed under general anesthesia and strictly sterile conditions, and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Copyright

© 2018, Hennig 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

  • 5,603
    views
  • 645
    downloads
  • 59
    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. Jay A Hennig
  2. Matthew D Golub
  3. Peter J Lund
  4. Patrick T Sadtler
  5. Emily R Oby
  6. Kristin M Quick
  7. Stephen I Ryu
  8. Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara
  9. Aaron P Batista
  10. Byron M Yu
  11. Steven M Chase
(2018)
Constraints on neural redundancy
eLife 7:e36774.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36774

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36774

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jun Sun, Francisca Rojo-Cortes ... Alicia Hidalgo
    Research Article

    Experience shapes the brain as neural circuits can be modified by neural stimulation or the lack of it. The molecular mechanisms underlying structural circuit plasticity and how plasticity modifies behaviour are poorly understood. Subjective experience requires dopamine, a neuromodulator that assigns a value to stimuli, and it also controls behaviour, including locomotion, learning, and memory. In Drosophila, Toll receptors are ideally placed to translate experience into structural brain change. Toll-6 is expressed in dopaminergic neurons (DANs), raising the intriguing possibility that Toll-6 could regulate structural plasticity in dopaminergic circuits. Drosophila neurotrophin-2 (DNT-2) is the ligand for Toll-6 and Kek-6, but whether it is required for circuit structural plasticity was unknown. Here, we show that DNT-2-expressing neurons connect with DANs, and they modulate each other. Loss of function for DNT-2 or its receptors Toll-6 and kinase-less Trk-like kek-6 caused DAN and synapse loss, impaired dendrite growth and connectivity, decreased synaptic sites, and caused locomotion deficits. In contrast, over-expressed DNT-2 increased DAN cell number, dendrite complexity, and promoted synaptogenesis. Neuronal activity modified DNT-2, increased synaptogenesis in DNT-2-positive neurons and DANs, and over-expression of DNT-2 did too. Altering the levels of DNT-2 or Toll-6 also modified dopamine-dependent behaviours, including locomotion and long-term memory. To conclude, a feedback loop involving dopamine and DNT-2 highlighted the circuits engaged, and DNT-2 with Toll-6 and Kek-6 induced structural plasticity in this circuit modifying brain function and behaviour.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Josse Poppinga, Nolan J Barrett ... Jan RT van Weering
    Research Article

    Sorting nexin 4 (SNX4) is an evolutionary conserved organizer of membrane recycling. In neurons, SNX4 accumulates in synapses, but how SNX4 affects synapse function remains unknown. We generated a conditional SNX4 knock-out mouse model and report that SNX4 cKO synapses show enhanced neurotransmission during train stimulation, while the first evoked EPSC was normal. SNX4 depletion did not affect vesicle recycling, basic autophagic flux, or the levels and localization of SNARE-protein VAMP2/synaptobrevin-2. However, SNX4 depletion affected synapse ultrastructure: an increase in docked synaptic vesicles at the active zone, while the overall vesicle number was normal, and a decreased active zone length. These effects together lead to a substantially increased density of docked vesicles per release site. In conclusion, SNX4 is a negative regulator of synaptic vesicle docking and release. These findings suggest a role for SNX4 in synaptic vesicle recruitment at the active zone.