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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Eric Shea-Brown, University of Washington, United States

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.

Version history

  1. Received: March 18, 2018
  2. Accepted: August 6, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 15, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 5, 2018 (version 2)

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

  • 5,390
    views
  • 623
    downloads
  • 52
    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. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.