Layer 6 ensembles can selectively regulate the behavioral impact and layer-specific representation of sensory deviants

  1. Jakob Voigts  Is a corresponding author
  2. Christopher A Deister
  3. Christopher I Moore  Is a corresponding author
  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
  2. Brown University, United States

Abstract

Predictive models can enhance the salience of unanticipated input. Here, we tested a key potential node in neocortical model formation in this process, layer (L) 6, using behavioral, electrophysiological and imaging methods in mouse primary somatosensory neocortex. We found that deviant stimuli enhanced tactile detection and were encoded in L2/3 neural tuning. To test the contribution of L6, we applied weak optogenetic drive that changed which L6 neurons were sensory responsive, without affecting overall firing rates in L6 or L2/3. This stimulation selectively suppressed behavioral sensitivity to deviant stimuli, without impacting baseline performance. This stimulation also eliminated deviance encoding in L2/3 but did not impair basic stimulus responses across layers. In contrast, stronger L6 drive inhibited firing and suppressed overall sensory function. These findings indicate that, despite their sparse activity, specific ensembles of stimulus driven L6 neurons are required to form neocortical predictions, and to realize their behavioral benefit.

Data availability

Underlying data for all main result figures is included in the supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jakob Voigts

    Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    jvoigts@mit.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5174-7214
  2. Christopher A Deister

    Department of Neuroscience and Brown Institute for Brain Sciences, Brown University, Providence, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Christopher I Moore

    Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, United States
    For correspondence
    Christopher_Moore@brown.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4534-1602

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01NS045130)

  • Christopher I Moore

National Institutes of Health (F32MH100749)

  • Christopher A Deister

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 procedures and animal care protocols conformed to guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health, and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol (#1710000308) at Brown University (PHS Animal Welfare Assurance number D16-00183)

Reviewing Editor

  1. John R Huguenard, Stanford University School of Medicine, United States

Version history

  1. Received: June 1, 2019
  2. Accepted: December 1, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 2, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 20, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Voigts 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

  • 2,408
    Page views
  • 329
    Downloads
  • 12
    Citations

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

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. Jakob Voigts
  2. Christopher A Deister
  3. Christopher I Moore
(2020)
Layer 6 ensembles can selectively regulate the behavioral impact and layer-specific representation of sensory deviants
eLife 9:e48957.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48957

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Louise Schenberg, Aïda Palou ... Mathieu Beraneck
    Research Article

    The functional complementarity of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) and optokinetic reflex (OKR) allows for optimal combined gaze stabilization responses (CGR) in light. While sensory substitution has been reported following complete vestibular loss, the capacity of the central vestibular system to compensate for partial peripheral vestibular loss remains to be determined. Here, we first demonstrate the efficacy of a 6-week subchronic ototoxic protocol in inducing transient and partial vestibular loss which equally affects the canal- and otolith-dependent VORs. Immunostaining of hair cells in the vestibular sensory epithelia revealed that organ-specific alteration of type I, but not type II, hair cells correlates with functional impairments. The decrease in VOR performance is paralleled with an increase in the gain of the OKR occurring in a specific range of frequencies where VOR normally dominates gaze stabilization, compatible with a sensory substitution process. Comparison of unimodal OKR or VOR versus bimodal CGR revealed that visuo-vestibular interactions remain reduced despite a significant recovery in the VOR. Modeling and sweep-based analysis revealed that the differential capacity to optimally combine OKR and VOR correlates with the reproducibility of the VOR responses. Overall, these results shed light on the multisensory reweighting occurring in pathologies with fluctuating peripheral vestibular malfunction.

    1. Neuroscience
    Mika Rubinov
    Review Article

    Genuinely new discovery transcends existing knowledge. Despite this, many analyses in systems neuroscience neglect to test new speculative hypotheses against benchmark empirical facts. Some of these analyses inadvertently use circular reasoning to present existing knowledge as new discovery. Here, I discuss that this problem can confound key results and estimate that it has affected more than three thousand studies in network neuroscience over the last decade. I suggest that future studies can reduce this problem by limiting the use of speculative evidence, integrating existing knowledge into benchmark models, and rigorously testing proposed discoveries against these models. I conclude with a summary of practical challenges and recommendations.