1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Chronically-implanted Neuropixels probes enable high yield recordings in freely moving mice

  1. Ashley L Juavinett
  2. George Bekheet
  3. Anne K Churchland  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Diego, United States
  2. University of Connecticutt, United States
  3. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, United States
Tools and Resources
  • Cited 18
  • Views 10,580
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e47188 doi: 10.7554/eLife.47188

Abstract

The advent of high-yield electrophysiology using Neuropixels probes is now enabling researchers to simultaneously record hundreds of neurons with remarkably high signal to noise. However, these probes have not been well-suited to use in freely moving mice. It is critical to study neural activity in unrestricted animals for many reasons, such as leveraging ethological approaches to study neural circuits. We designed and implemented a novel device that allows Neuropixels probes to be customized for chronically-implanted experiments in freely moving mice. We demonstrate the ease and utility of this approach in recording hundreds of neurons during an ethological behavior across weeks of experiments. We provide the technical drawings and procedures for other researchers to do the same. Importantly, our approach enables researchers to explant and reuse these valuable probes, a transformative step which has not been established for recordings with any type of chronically-implanted probe.

Data availability

We have made all the materials related to this device available to the community via GitHub. The technical drawings, the methodological instructions, the photographs and supporting code will, together, allow any researcher to rapidly adopt this new technology and begin to benefit from Neuropixels probes. We are open to other sharing platforms as well (e.g. bio-protocol).We will make the data from the electrophysiological recordings available as well, via the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory repository which is linked form our lab website.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ashley L Juavinett

    Division of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4254-3009
  2. George Bekheet

    School of Medicine, University of Connecticutt, Farmington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Anne K Churchland

    Department of Neuroscience, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, United States
    For correspondence
    churchland@cshl.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3205-3794

Funding

Simons Foundation (Simons Collaboration on the Global Brain)

  • Anne K Churchland

Pew Foundation (Pew Scholars)

  • Anne K Churchland

Eleanor Schwartz Fund (Scholar award)

  • Anne K Churchland

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (Marie Robertson)

  • Anne K Churchland

National Science Foundation (1559816)

  • George Bekheet

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 surgical and behavioral procedures conformed to the guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health and were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (protocol # 16-13-10-7). All surgery was performed under isoflurane anesthesia and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Laura L Colgin, University of Texas at Austin, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: March 27, 2019
  2. Accepted: August 5, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 14, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 23, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Juavinett 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

  • 10,580
    Page views
  • 1,044
    Downloads
  • 18
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Douglas G Lee, Jean Daunizeau
    Research Article Updated

    Why do we sometimes opt for actions or items that we do not value the most? Under current neurocomputational theories, such preference reversals are typically interpreted in terms of errors that arise from the unreliable signaling of value to brain decision systems. But, an alternative explanation is that people may change their mind because they are reassessing the value of alternative options while pondering the decision. So, why do we carefully ponder some decisions, but not others? In this work, we derive a computational model of the metacognitive control of decisions or MCD. In brief, we assume that fast and automatic processes first provide initial (and largely uncertain) representations of options' values, yielding prior estimates of decision difficulty. These uncertain value representations are then refined by deploying cognitive (e.g., attentional, mnesic) resources, the allocation of which is controlled by an effort-confidence tradeoff. Importantly, the anticipated benefit of allocating resources varies in a decision-by-decision manner according to the prior estimate of decision difficulty. The ensuing MCD model predicts response time, subjective feeling of effort, choice confidence, changes of mind, as well as choice-induced preference change and certainty gain. We test these predictions in a systematic manner, using a dedicated behavioral paradigm. Our results provide a quantitative link between mental effort, choice confidence, and preference reversals, which could inform interpretations of related neuroimaging findings.

    1. Neuroscience
    Rundong Jiang et al.
    Research Article

    The ventral visual pathway is crucially involved in integrating low-level visual features into complex representations for objects and scenes. At an intermediate stage of the ventral visual pathway, V4 plays a crucial role in supporting this transformation. Many V4 neurons are selective for shape segments like curves and corners, however it remains unclear whether these neurons are organized into clustered functional domains, a structural motif common across other visual cortices. Using two-photon calcium imaging in awake macaques, we confirmed and localized cortical domains selective for curves or corners in V4. Single-cell resolution imaging confirmed that curve or corner selective neurons were spatially clustered into such domains. When tested with hexagonal-segment stimuli, we find that stimulus smoothness is the cardinal difference between curve and corner selectivity in V4. Combining cortical population responses with single neuron analysis, our results reveal that curves and corners are encoded by neurons clustered into functional domains in V4. This functionally-specific population architecture bridges the gap between the early and late cortices of the ventral pathway and may serve to facilitate complex object recognition.