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

  • 5,640
    views
  • 651
    downloads
  • 61
    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
    Christine Ahrends, Mark W Woolrich, Diego Vidaurre
    Tools and Resources

    Predicting an individual’s cognitive traits or clinical condition using brain signals is a central goal in modern neuroscience. This is commonly done using either structural aspects, such as structural connectivity or cortical thickness, or aggregated measures of brain activity that average over time. But these approaches are missing a central aspect of brain function: the unique ways in which an individual’s brain activity unfolds over time. One reason why these dynamic patterns are not usually considered is that they have to be described by complex, high-dimensional models; and it is unclear how best to use these models for prediction. We here propose an approach that describes dynamic functional connectivity and amplitude patterns using a Hidden Markov model (HMM) and combines it with the Fisher kernel, which can be used to predict individual traits. The Fisher kernel is constructed from the HMM in a mathematically principled manner, thereby preserving the structure of the underlying model. We show here, in fMRI data, that the HMM-Fisher kernel approach is accurate and reliable. We compare the Fisher kernel to other prediction methods, both time-varying and time-averaged functional connectivity-based models. Our approach leverages information about an individual’s time-varying amplitude and functional connectivity for prediction and has broad applications in cognitive neuroscience and personalised medicine.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jessica Royer, Valeria Kebets ... Boris C Bernhardt
    Research Article Updated

    Complex structural and functional changes occurring in typical and atypical development necessitate multidimensional approaches to better understand the risk of developing psychopathology. Here, we simultaneously examined structural and functional brain network patterns in relation to dimensions of psychopathology in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) dataset. Several components were identified, recapitulating the psychopathology hierarchy, with the general psychopathology (p) factor explaining most covariance with multimodal imaging features, while the internalizing, externalizing, and neurodevelopmental dimensions were each associated with distinct morphological and functional connectivity signatures. Connectivity signatures associated with the p factor and neurodevelopmental dimensions followed the sensory-to-transmodal axis of cortical organization, which is related to the emergence of complex cognition and risk for psychopathology. Results were consistent in two separate data subsamples and robust to variations in analytical parameters. Although model parameters yielded statistically significant brain–behavior associations in unseen data, generalizability of the model was rather limited for all three latent components (r change from within- to out-of-sample statistics: LC1within = 0.36, LC1out = 0.03; LC2within = 0.34, LC2out = 0.05; LC3within = 0.35, LC3out = 0.07). Our findings help in better understanding biological mechanisms underpinning dimensions of psychopathology, and could provide brain-based vulnerability markers.