Subpopulations of neurons in lOFC encode previous and current rewards at time of choice
Abstract
Studies of neural dynamics in lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) have shown that subsets of neurons that encode distinct aspects of behavior, such as value, may project to common downstream targets. However, it is unclear whether reward history, which may subserve lOFC’s welldocumented role in learning, is represented by functional subpopulations in lOFC. Previously, we analyzed neural recordings from rats performing a valuebased decisionmaking task, and we documented trialbytrial learning that required lOFC (Constantinople et al., 2019). Here, we characterize functional subpopulations of lOFC neurons during behavior, including their encoding of task variables. We found five distinct clusters of lOFC neurons, either based on clustering of their trialaveraged peristimulus time histograms (PSTHs), or a feature space defined by their average conditional firing rates aligned to different task variables. We observed weak encoding of reward attributes, but stronger encoding of reward history, the animal’s left or right choice, and reward receipt across all clusters. Only one cluster, however, encoded the animal’s reward history at the time shortly preceding the choice, suggesting a possible role in integrating previous and current trial outcomes at the time of choice. This cluster also exhibits qualitatively similar responses to identified corticostriatal projection neurons in a recent study (Hirokawa et al., 2019), and suggests a possible role for subpopulations of lOFC neurons in mediating trialbytrial learning.
Editor's evaluation
This study used advanced statistical methods to classify the responses of neurons in the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) of rats performing economic choices. The authors report that lOFC neurons can be classified into a small number of distinct types based on their characteristic temporal dynamics and preferences for task variables (e.g., choice, success, reward history). The results will be of interest to neuroscientists studying prefrontal cortex, as they demonstrate order amidst what would appear as disorganized diversity, and suggest that some neuronal types play specific functional roles; for instance, in integrating previous trial outcomes into a current choice.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70129.sa0Introduction
Previous experience can profoundly influence subsequent behavior and choices. In trialbased tasks, the effects of previous choices and outcomes on subsequent ones are referred to as ‘sequential effects,’ and while they are advantageous in dynamic environments, they produce suboptimal biases when outcomes on each trial are independent. The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) has been implicated in updating behavior based on previous experience, particularly when task contingencies are partially observable (Rushworth et al., 2011; Stalnaker et al., 2014; Wallis, 2007; Wilson et al., 2014). However, it is unclear whether behavioral flexibility in OFC is mediated by dedicated subpopulations of neurons exhibiting distinct encoding and/or connectivity. We previously trained rats on a valuebased decisionmaking task, in which they chose between explicitly cued, guaranteed and probabilistic rewards on each trial (Constantinople et al., 2019b; Constantinople et al., 2019a). Despite the fact that outcomes were independent on each trial, we observed several distinct sequential effects that contributed to behavioral variability. Optogenetic perturbations of the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) eliminated one particular sequential effect, an increased willingness to take risks following risky wins, but spared other types of trialbytrial learning, such as spatial ‘winstay/loseswitch’ biases. We interpreted this data as evidence that (1) different sequential effects may be mediated by distinct neural circuits and (2) lOFC promotes learning of abstract biases that reflect the task structure (here, biases for the risky option), but not spatial ones (Constantinople et al., 2019a).
Electrophysiological recordings from lOFC during this task revealed encoding of reward history and reward outcomes on each trial at the population level, which could in principle support sequential effects (Constantinople et al., 2019a). Recent studies of rodent OFC have suggested that despite the apparent heterogeneity of neural responses in prefrontal cortex, neurons can be grouped into distinct clusters that exhibit similar taskrelated responses and, in some cases, project to a common downstream target (Hirokawa et al., 2019; Namboodiri et al., 2019). In light of these results, we hypothesized that reward history might be encoded by a distinct cluster of neurons in lOFC. This would suggest that the lOFCdependent sequential effect we observed (an increased willingness to take risks following risky wins) may derive from a subpopulation of neurons encoding reward history, and may potentially project to a common downstream target.
Here, we analyzed an electrophysiological dataset from lOFC during a task in which independent and variable sensory cues conveyed dissociable reward attributes on each trial (reward probability and amount; Constantinople et al., 2019b; Constantinople et al., 2019a). Our previous analysis investigated single unit responses for sensitivity to task parameters, and here we found that clustering of lOFC neurons based on either their trialaveraged peristimulus time histograms (PSTHs), or a feature space defined by their average conditional firing rates aligned to different task variables (Hirokawa et al., 2019), both revealed five clusters of neurons with different response profiles. We exploited the temporal variability of task events to fit a generalized linear model (GLM) to lOFC firing rates, generating a rich description of the encoding of various task variables over time in individual neurons. All the clusters exhibited weak encoding of reward attributes, and stronger encoding of reward history, the animal’s left or right choice, and reward receipt. Encoding of these variables was broadly distributed across clusters. Only one cluster, however, encoded the animal’s reward history at the time shortly preceding the choice. This distinct encoding was observable by three independent metrics (coefficient of partial determination, mutual information, and discriminability or ${d}^{\prime}$) and two separate clustering methods. Intriguingly, this cluster exhibited qualitatively similar responses to identified corticostriatal cells in a previous study (Hirokawa et al., 2019), and also exhibited the strongest encoding of reward outcomes, suggesting that these neurons are wellsituated to integrate previous and current reward experience. We hypothesize that this subpopulation of neurons, which were identifiable based on their temporal response profiles alone, may mediate sequential learning effects by integrating previous and current trial outcomes at the time of choice.
Results
Rats’ behavior on this task has been previously described (Constantinople et al., 2019b; Constantinople et al., 2019a). Briefly, rats initiated a trial by poking their nose in a central nose port (Figure 1A–C). They were then presented with a series of pseudorandomly timed light flashes, the number of which conveyed information about reward probability on each trial. Simultaneously, they were presented with randomly timed auditory clicks, the rate of which conveyed the volume of water reward (6–48 µl) baited on each side. After a cue period of $\sim 2.53\mathrm{s}$, rats reported their choice by poking in one of the two side ports. Reward volume and probability of reward ($p$) were randomly chosen on each trial. On each trial, the left or right port was randomly designated as risky ($p\S lt;1$) or safe ($p=1$). Welltrained rats tended to choose the side offering the greater subjective value, and trial history effects contributed to behavioral variability (Constantinople et al., 2019b; Constantinople et al., 2019a). We analyzed 659 wellisolated singleunits in the lOFC with minimum firing rates of 1 Hz, obtained from tetrode recordings (Constantinople et al., 2019a).
Single units in lOFC belong to clusters with distinct temporal response profiles
To characterize the temporal dynamics of the neural responses during this task, we performed kmeans clustering on trialaveraged PSTHs (‘PSTH clustering’), aligned to trial initiation. We used the gap statistic (Tibshirani et al., 2001), which quantifies the improvement in cluster quality with additional clusters relative to a null distribution (Materials and methods), to choose a principled number of clusters, and identified five distinct clusters of responses (Figure 1D). Each cluster has a stereotyped period of elevated activity during the task: at trial start, during the cue period, and at or near reward delivery, with the largest cluster (cluster 3) having activity just before the rat entered the reward port (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Cluster two is the only cluster that exhibited persistent activity during the cue period. These data indicate that despite the welldocumented heterogeneity of neural responses in prefrontal cortex, responses in lOFC belonged to one of a relatively small, distinct set of temporal response profiles aligned to different task events.
A recent study in rat lOFC similarly found discrete clusters of neural responses by clustering the conditional firing rates of neurons for different taskrelated variables (‘conditional clustering’) (Hirokawa et al., 2019). We sought to compare results from clustering on PSTHs and conditional firing rates. Therefore, we generated conditional response profiles for each neuron (Figure 2B; Materials and methods), and performed clustering on these conditional responses via the same procedure. This also revealed five distinct clusters that exhibited qualitatively similar temporal response profiles as the clusters that were based on the average PSTHs (Figure 2C–E, Figure 2—figure supplement 3). Moreover, clusters 2 and 3 were comprised of highly similar groups of neurons across both procedures, where similarity was quantified by the consistency of being labeled in a given cluster across clustering approaches (Figure 2E, 66% overlap of cluster 2 neurons and 70% of cluster three neurons). This indicates that neurons in these two clusters are robustly identified by either their temporal response profiles or their encoding of task variables (Figure 2E).
We evaluated the quality of clustering using two additional methods. First, we visualized clustering using tSNE projections of data into two dimensions, and further quantified cluster separation using the Mahalanobis distance among clusters, which in this context can be interpreted as an average zscore for data in a cluster from a given cluster mean (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). We found that lOFC responses obtained by both procedures were qualitatively clustered in feature space, and demonstrated Mahalahobis distances with smaller intracluster distances than acrosscluster distances. Second, we used the PAIRS statistic to more directly test whether lOFC responses belong to distinct clusters (Raposo et al., 2014). PAIRS examines the angle between neural responses in feature space, and obtains an average angle for the data points closest to it. Intuitively, a small average angle among neighboring points implies that the data is tightly packed together into clusters, whereas larger angles suggest broadly distributed, unclustered data. We found that our neural responses were more tightly packed together than would be observed for an unclustered, Gaussian reference distribution (Figure 2—figure supplement 4).
Finally, we also compared the estimated the number of clusters in the data to those obtained using other clustering metrics, in particular the silhouette score and adjusted Rand Index (Figure 2—figure supplement 5). The silhouette score quantifies cluster quality with two components: it provides high scores when points within a cluster are close in feature space, and penalizes small intercluster distances that arise when clusters are nearby in feature space. The adjusted Rand Index (ARI) does not assess cluster quality through distances among datapoints in feature space, but instead is a measure of reproducibility of a clustering result. Specifically, it quantifies the probability that two labels from separate clustering results would arise by chance. We generated labels for ARI by subsampling our data (90% sampling without replacement) and calculated ARI on the subsampled dataset and the full dataset. ARI results demonstrated a broad range of possible numbers of clusters with reproducible cluster labels (Figure 2—figure supplement 5A). In contrast, the silhouette score gave inconclusive results on our lOFC data (Figure 2—figure supplement 5B). The dimensionality and covariance of our lOFC responses lies in a regime in which clusters are tightly packed in feature space, a regime in which silhouette score is known to underestimate the number of clusters in other contexts (GarciaDias et al., 2020; GarciaDias et al., 2018). To assess this more directly, we compared the results from different clustering metrics on artificial data with known statistics (deriving from five clusters). We found that in the datalike regime, the silhouette score substantially underestimated the optimal number of clusters (two clusters, Figure 2—figure supplement 6, see Discussion and Materials and methods). The gap statistic underestimated cluster number on synthetic data, but to a lesser degree. Taken together, these analyses suggest that the gap statistic is a conservative but principled metric for determining the number of clusters in the statistical regime of the lOFC data.
Neural responses in lOFC are wellcaptured by a generalized linear model that includes attributes of offered rewards, choice, and reward history
We next sought to characterize the encoding properties of neurons in each cluster. To that end, we modeled each neuron’s trialbytrial spiking activity with a generalized linear model with Poisson noise (Figure 3). This approach has been previously used in sensory areas to model the effects of external stimuli upon neural firing (Pillow et al., 2005; Pillow et al., 2008), and more recently has been extended to higher order areas of cortex during decisionmaking tasks (Park et al., 2014). In this model, the timedependent firing rate (${\lambda}_{t}$) of a neuron is the exponentiated sum of a set of linear terms.
where the variables ${X}_{t\tau :t}^{(s)}$ are the stimuli and behavioral events against which neural activity is regressed; ${k}_{s}(\tau )$ denote the response kernels that are convolved with the task variables to model timedependent responses to each variable (Figure 3C). The probability that a given number of spikes would occur in a discrete time bin of $\mathrm{\Delta}t=50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}$ is given by a homogeneous Poisson process with mean ${\lambda}_{t}\mathrm{\Delta}t$.
The task variables and example kernels for our model are shown for a sample neuron in Figure 3C. Variables were binarized such that 1 (0) denoted the occurrence (absence) of an event. The task variables included reward (win or loss on the current or previous trial), choice (left or right), and the timing of cues indicating reward attributes for the left and right offers (reward volume conveyed by auditory clicks and reward probability conveyed by visual flashes). We also included the average reward rate prior to starting each trial and the location of the trial within the session (not shown). Given the large number of model parameters, we used a smooth, lograised cosine temporal basis and L2 regularization to prevent overfitting (Materials and methods). Based on model comparison, we found that including a spike history term as in other GLM approaches did not improve our model, presumably due to the fact that we are modeling longer timescale responses.
The chosen model parameters were selected by model comparison against several alternative models using crossvalidation. Model comparison favored a simpler binary win/loss representation of rewarded outcomes over richer representations of reward volume on the current or previous trial (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). The model reproduced the trialaveraged PSTHs of individual neurons (Figure 3E). To quantify model performance, we calculated the proportion of variance explained (${R}^{2}$) for heldout testing data (Figure 3F). The model captured a high percentage of variance for most of the neurons in our dataset. A small fraction of neurons exhibited negative ${R}^{2}$ values (69 units, Figure 3—figure supplement 2), indicating that the model produced a worse fit of the test data than the data average. Our liberal inclusion criteria did not require neurons to exhibit taskmodulation of their firing rates, so these neurons were likely not taskmodulated, and were excluded from subsequent analyses.
Clustering reveals distributed encoding of most task variables across subpopulations of lOFC neurons
We next sought to characterize the extent to which neurons that belonged to different clusters might be ‘functionally distinct,’ and encode different taskrelated variables (Hirokawa et al., 2019; Namboodiri et al., 2019). To address this question, we computed two complementary but independent metrics, both based on the GLM fit: the coefficient of partial determination and mutual information. The coefficient of partial determination (CPD) quantifies the contribution of a single covariate (e.g. left/right choice) to a neuron’s response by comparing the goodnessoffit of the encoding model with and without that covariate. In other words, the CPD quantifies the amount of variance that is explained by kernels representing different aspects of the model. We computed the CPD in a sliding time window throughout the trial, and compared CPD values to a shuffle test, in which trial indices were randomly shuffled relative to the design matrix before generating model predictions. CPD values that were within the 95% confidence intervals of the shuffled distribution were set to 0 before averaging CPD values over neurons in a cluster. The average CPD values for different task variables is shown for clusters based on each clustering procedure in Figure 4A and C. Note that CPD plots are aligned to different events, depending on the covariate.
We also computed the mutual information (MI) between neural spike trains and different model covariates (Materials and methods). Our approach relates the statistics of triallevel events to firing rates, which allows us to assess the information content for each stimulus throughout the entire time course of a trial. Such an approach does not easily generalize to the statistics of withintrial events such as the information represented in stimulus clicks and flashes, so we restricted the MI analysis to the other covariates: reward history, choice, and reward outcome. The average MI for these variables is shown for clusters based on the trialaveraged PSTHs in Figure 4B.
In general, regardless of the metric (CPD or MI) or clustering procedure (PSTH clustering or conditional clustering), task variables appear to be broadly encoded across neural subpopulations, with similar temporal dynamics and average CPD/MI values across clusters. All clusters encoded cues conveying reward volume and probability during the cue period (Figure 4C), although it is worth noting that the magnitude of CPD for clicks and flashes was an order of magnitude lower than for the other task variables. Therefore, encoding of cues representing reward attributes was substantially weaker than encoding of reward history, choice, and outcome. It may be surprising that neurons with strikingly different PSTHs appear to encode task variables with similar time courses. However, PSTHs marginalize out all conditional information, so a PSTH carries no information about encoding of task or behavioral variables, per se. Additionally, to assess whether different clusters may have a different composition across neuron types, we classified single units based on their waveforms into regular spiking units with broad action potential (AP) and afterhyperpolarization (AFP) widths, or fastspiking units with narrow AP and AHP widths. We found the distribution of these two unit types to be similar across clusters (Figure 4—figure supplement 1).
Reward history was most strongly encoded at the time of trial initiation and decayed over the course of the trial, consistent with previous analyses (Constantinople et al., 2019a). Neurons belonging to cluster 2, which strongly overlap in both clustering procedures (Figure 2E), seem to exhibit slightly more pronounced encoding of reward history during the trial, compared to the other clusters, although these neurons were also persistently active during this time period. Encoding of choice and reward outcomes were phasic, peaking as the animal made his choice and received outcome feedback, respectively, and were broadly distributed across clusters (Figure 4A–B).
Reward history reemerges before choice in a distinct subset of lOFC neurons
The CPD and MI analysis revealed one aspect of encoding that is unique to cluster 3. Both clustering methods identified largely overlapping populations of neurons in this cluster (Figure 2E), indicating that these neurons exhibited similar temporal response profiles as well as encoding. Like neurons in the other clusters, neurons in cluster 3 encoded reward history at trial initiation, and that encoding decreased through the cue period. However, for neurons in this cluster, encoding of reward history reemerged at the time preceding the animal’s choice on the current trial (Figure 5A–B, green lines). This ‘bump’ of reward history encoding late in the trial was unique to cluster 3 regardless of the clustering method, and was observable in both CPD and MI (Figure 4A–B). This result was further corroborated by computing the average discriminability index (${d}^{\prime}$) for reward history, which is a modelagnostic metric that quantifies the difference in mean firing rate in each condition, accounting for response variance over trials. Cluster 3 was unique from the other clusters for having a subset of neurons with high ${d}^{\prime}$ values for reward history at the time preceding the animal’s choice (Figure 5C). We additionally found that encoding of previous wins and losses during this time period only extended to the previous trial, and did not encode the outcome of additional past trials (Figure 5—figure supplement 1). Clustering of PSTHs aligned to later events in the trial showed more detailed structure of this lateintrial encoding of reward history, with some neurons encoding the previous trial just before the choice, and others at the time of choice (Figure 5—figure supplement 2C). We note that clustering on PSTHs aligned to later events produced similar results, in terms of the number of clusters and the withincluster responses (Figure 5—figure supplement 2B).
Notably, cluster 3 also exhibited the most prominent encoding of reward outcome compared to the other clusters (Figure 4A–B, green, bottom row). This suggests that this subset of neurons may be specialized for representing or even integrating information about reward outcomes on previous and current trials. We wondered if this might reflect adaptive value coding, in which value representations in OFC have been observed to dynamically reflect the statistics of offered rewards (Kobayashi et al., 2010; Webb et al., 2014; Yamada et al., 2018; PadoaSchioppa, 2009; Rustichini et al., 2017; Conen and PadoaSchioppa, 2019). Adaptive value coding, which is thought to reflect a divisive normalization or range adaptation mechanism, allows the circuit to efficiently represent values in diverse contexts in which their magnitudes may differ substantially. As such, it provides key computational advantages, such as efficient coding, or the maximization of mutual information between neural signaling and the statistics of the environment (Webb et al., 2014; Yamada et al., 2018; PadoaSchioppa, 2009; Rustichini et al., 2017; Simoncelli and Olshausen, 2001; Carandini and Heeger, 2011; Tymula and Glimcher, 2020; Louie and Glimcher, 2012).
According to divisive normalization models of subjective value, the value of an option or outcome is divided by a recencyweighted average of previous rewards (Tymula and Glimcher, 2020; Louie and Glimcher, 2012; Webb et al., 2014). Therefore, if neurons in OFC exhibit adaptive value coding, we would predict that they would exhibit stronger reward responses following unrewarded trials, and weaker responses following rewarded trials (Figure 6C). Put another way, regressing the firing rate against current and previous rewards should reveal coefficients with opposite signs (Kennerley et al., 2011). Neurons with regression coefficients for current and previous rewards with the same sign would be modulated by current and previous rewards, but not in a way that is consistent with the adaptive value coding hypothesis (Figure 6D).
To test this hypothesis, we regressed the firing rates of neurons in a 1s window after reward receipt against reward win/loss outcomes on the current trial, as well as the win/loss outcome from the previous trial (Figure 6, Materials and methods). We found that 180 neurons (27% of population) exhibited significant coefficients for both current reward and reward history regressors, and 45% of these units demonstrated adaptive value coding indicated by the opposite signs of regression coefficients for current and previous reward outcomes (81 units, Figure 6A, blue). To determine if these adaptive neurons preferentially resided in a particular cluster, we calculated the clusterspecific probability of a neuron demonstrating either significant coefficients for rewarded volume and reward history, or having coefficients with opposite signs, consistent with adaptive value coding (Figure 6B). We found that no cluster preferentially contained adaptive units with higher probability (comparison of 95% binomial confidence intervals). We also investigated whether adaptive value coding was present for rewarded volume representations, and similarly found that neurons did not preferentially reside in any one cluster (30 adaptive units out of 79 significant units, Figure 6—figure supplement 2). Notably, activity during the reward epoch did not appear to encode a reward prediction error (Figure 6—figure supplement 1), defined as the difference between the expected value and the outcome of the chosen option, as has been previously reported in rat and primate OFC (McDannald et al., 2011; Takahashi et al., 2009; Takahashi et al., 2013; Kennerley et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2018).
Neurons in Cluster 3 have similar responses to previously reported striatum projection neurons
Studies of OFC indicate that longrange projections to different downstream circuits exhibit distinct encoding and/or make distinct contributions to behavior (Groman et al., 2019; Hirokawa et al., 2019; Namboodiri et al., 2019). For instance, previous work from Hirokawa et al., 2019 used optogenetic tagging to record from OFC neurons that project to the ventral striatum, and found that these cells exhibited responses that seemed to correspond to a distinct cluster with stereotyped responses. This cluster encoded the trial outcome just after reward delivery, with larger responses following unrewarded trials, and also encoded the negative integrated value of the chosen option during the intertrial interval, until the start of the next trial (Figure 7A). We examined the average PSTHs of each cluster aligned to trial outcome and the start of the next trial, to see if any cluster resembled the corticostriatal responses described in Hirokawa et al., 2019. Specifically, we plotted the clusteraveraged firing rates for trials classified as a loss, a lowreward trial (6 or 12 µl), or a highreward trial (24 or 48 µl) (Figure 7B). We found that several clusters prominently encoded the reward outcome after reward (clusters 1, 3, 5); however, only cluster 3 encoded the negative (i.e., inverted) value of the reward during the intertrial interval until the start of the next trial. Therefore, one of the clusters that we identified in our data exhibits qualitatively similar responses to the corticostriatal projection neurons identified by clustering in Hirokawa et al., 2019.
Discussion
We analyzed neural responses in lOFC from rats performing a valuebased decisionmaking task, in which they chose between left and right offers with explicitly cued reward probabilities and volumes. Despite the apparent response heterogeneity in our dataset, two independent clustering methods revealed that neurons belonged to one of a small number of distinct clusters. We clustered based on the marginalized PSTHs over all trials, and found that subpopulations of neurons exhibited characteristic temporal response profiles. To our knowledge, using temporal responses that do not explicitly contain conditional information is a novel approach for identifying distinct neural response profiles in prefrontal cortex. We also clustered based on a conditional feature space for each neuron, consistent with previous work (Namboodiri et al., 2019; Hirokawa et al., 2019). The feature space for each neuron corresponded to its average firing rate on different trial types, in select time windows that most closely corresponded to the differentiating covariate on each trial (e.g. wins vs. losses at the time of reward feedback). Notably, these independent clustering methods identified robustly identifiable groups of neurons for two of the clusters, indicating that neurons in these clusters can be identified by either their temporal response profiles or their task variable encoding, as defined by the feature space.
Previous studies that clustered using a conditional feature space identified a larger number of clusters than we did here (Namboodiri et al., 2019; Hirokawa et al., 2019). This could reflect the different metrics used to select the number of clusters (the gap statistic in this study; compared to PCA and silhouette scores [Namboodiri et al., 2019], or adjusted Rand index [Hirokawa et al., 2019]). Another difference is the time window that was used to generate the conditional feature space. In Hirokawa et al., 2019, for instance, the authors used the same time window for each feature, which was after the rat made a choice but before it received feedback about the outcome of that choice. There was no such epoch in our behavioral paradigm, precluding a more direct comparison. However, a principled choice of clusters using the gap statistic still provided a useful tool for investigating the encoding of task variables in lOFC.
Rat lOFC weakly encodes reward attributes
Our task design allowed us to isolate neural responses to sensory cues that conveyed information about distinct reward attributes, because these cues were presented independently and variably in time. However, our GLM revealed weak encoding of these reward attributes – reward probability and volume – across all clusters, regardless of the clustering method. This was observable by examination of the relative magnitude of the flash and click kernels in individual neurons, and also by the CPD metric. The average flash and click CPD values were an order of magnitude smaller than for the other covariates, indicating that flashes and clicks did not contribute substantially to neural firing. Therefore, while behavioral analyses have shown that rats used the flashes and clicks to guide their choices (Constantinople et al., 2019b), these cues were not strongly represented in lOFC. This weak encoding of reward attributes, whose combination would specify the subjective value of each offer (Constantinople et al., 2019b), is potentially consistent with a recent study of rat lOFC during a multistep decisionmaking task that enabled dissociation of choice and outcome values (Miller et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2018). Recordings in that study revealed weak encoding of choice values, but strong encoding of outcome values, and optogenetic perturbations suggested a critical role for lOFC in guiding learning but not choice (Miller et al., 2018). Other studies in rat lOFC have reported strong encoding of reward and outcome values specifically following action selection, but not preceding choice (Sul et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2018; Steiner and Redish, 2014; Steiner and Redish, 2012; Mainen and Kepecs, 2009; Hirokawa et al., 2019). However, recordings from rat lOFC in sensory preconditioning paradigms have revealed cueevoked responses that may reflect inferred value (Sadacca et al., 2018; Takahashi et al., 2013). Studies in nonhuman primates have also reported strong encoding of offer values in OFC after presentation of a stimulus, and before choice (PadoaSchioppa and Assad, 2006; Kennerley et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2020; Rich and Wallis, 2016). A recent study in mouse OFC used olfactory cues to convey reward attributes (juice identity and volume) and reported encoding of offer values before choice (Kuwabara et al., 2020). It is unclear what factors may account for the pronounced encoding of offer value before choice in Kuwabara et al., 2020, but minimal encoding of offer value before choice in our data. One important difference is that the cues that conveyed reward attributes in the present study needed to be integrated over time. The integration process itself likely does not occur in OFC (Lin et al., 2020). It is possible that OFC would only represent the offer value once the animal had accumulated enough sensory evidence to infer it. If that inference occurred at a different time on each trial, depending on the strength of the sensory evidence and stochasticity of the accumulation process, then representations of offer value would not be observable in the trialaveraged neural response.
Adaptive coding in rat lOFC
Previous studies in primate medial (Yamada et al., 2018) and centrallateral (Kennerley et al., 2011; Tremblay and Schultz, 1999; PadoaSchioppa, 2009; Rustichini et al., 2017) OFC have reported subsets of neurons that adjust the gain of their firing rates to reflect the range of offered rewards, a phenomenon referred to as adaptive value coding. This type of coding is efficient because it would allow OFC to accurately encode values in diverse contexts that may vary substantially in reward statistics (Webb et al., 2014), analogous to divisive normalization in sensory systems (Carandini and Heeger, 2011; Simoncelli and Olshausen, 2001).
According to divisive normalization models of subjective value, the value of an option is divided by a recencyweighted average of previous rewards (Louie and Glimcher, 2012; Tymula and Glimcher, 2020; Webb et al., 2014). Therefore, we would predict that neurons implementing adaptive value coding would exhibit stronger responses following unrewarded trials, and weaker responses following rewarded trials. Consistent with this hypothesis, we identified a subset of neurons that had significant coefficients for rewards on current and previous trials, with opposite signs, and while this fraction was somewhat modest (∼15%), it was comparable to the proportion of adaptive value coding neurons observed in centrallateral primate OFC (Kennerley et al., 2011). Notably, we did not find any evidence of encoding of a reward prediction error during this epoch, or the difference between the expected value of the chosen lottery and the outcome. Therefore, the differential encoding of reward outcomes depending on reward history reflected a discrepancy between reward outcomes and recent experience, not a discrepancy between reward outcomes and expectations (as in a reward prediction error). These were dissociable in our task, due to the sensory cues that explicitly indicated expected value on each trial. We emphasize that adaptive value coding is likely not a specialization of lOFC, but probably occurs broadly in brain areas that represent subjective value.
Mixed selectivity in OFC
The complexity and diversity of responses found in the prefrontal cortex, including the OFC, has led to questions about whether or not neurons with mixed selectivity or specialized responses represent behavioral and cognitive variables (Rigotti et al., 2013; Hirokawa et al., 2019; Raposo et al., 2014; Mante et al., 2013; Namboodiri et al., 2019). We tested if OFC neural responses belonged to clusters in our task using two separate methods: the gap statistic, and the PAIRS statistic. Both methods confirm that there is statistically significant clustering in our data. We emphasize, however, that mixed selectivity is fundamentally a property of individual neurons. We did not directly investigate whether individual lOFC neurons in our dataset exhibited mixed selectivity, but instead focused on encoding at the level of clusters. The broad encoding of task variables in each cluster suggests that lOFC neurons probably exhibit mixed selectivity, but a formal assessment was beyond the scope of our study.
Representations of reward history in OFC
In studies that require animals to learn and update the value of actions and outcomes from experience (i.e. in accordance with reinforcement learning), values are often manipulated or changed over the course of the experiment to assess behavioral flexibility, valueupdating, and goaldirected behavior. In rodents and primates, lesion and perturbation studies have shown that the OFC is critical for inferring value in these contexts, suggesting an important role in learning and dynamically updating value estimates for modelbased reinforcement learning (Gallagher et al., 1999; Izquierdo et al., 2004; Pickens et al., 2005; Noonan et al., 2010; West et al., 2011; Gremel and Costa, 2013; Miller et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2018). Neural recordings in these dynamic paradigms have revealed activity in OFC that reflects reward history and outcome values, which could subserve evaluative processing and learning (Nogueira et al., 2017; Sul et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2018).
Other studies, including this one, have used sensory cues (e.g. static images, odors) to convey information about reward attributes. Once learned, the mapping between these cues and reward attributes is fixed, and the subject must choose between options with explicitly cued values. Neurons in the centrallateral primate OFC and rat lOFC have been shown to represent the values associated with these sensory cues in their firing rates, as well as reward outcomes and outcome values (Thorpe et al., 1983; Schoenbaum et al., 1998; Tremblay and Schultz, 1999; Wallis and Miller, 2003; PadoaSchioppa and Assad, 2006; Sul et al., 2010; PadoaSchioppa, 2011; Levy and Glimcher, 2012; Rudebeck and Murray, 2014; Sadacca et al., 2018; Hirokawa et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020). However, the extent to which OFC is causally required for these tasks is a point of contention, and may differ across species (Ballesta et al., 2020; Gardner et al., 2020; Kuwabara et al., 2020). Notably, even when reward contingencies are fixed over trials, animals often show sequential learning effects (Lak et al., 2020; Constantinople et al., 2019b), and reward history representations in OFC have been reported in tasks with stable reward contingencies (Constantinople et al., 2019a; PadoaSchioppa, 2013; Kennerley et al., 2011).
In this study, we have described dynamic trialbytrial changes in firing rates that reflected reward history just preceding the choice. These reward history representations might influence ongoing neural dynamics supporting the upcoming choice (Mochol et al., 2021), and/or mediate learning. In contrast to broadly distributed adaptive value coding, this activity was restricted to a particular subset of neurons that were identifiable by two independent clustering methods, and that exhibited the strongest encoding of reward outcomes. Intriguingly, the responses of neurons in this cluster (cluster 3) are qualitatively similar to the responses of identified corticostriatal cells in Hirokawa et al., 2019, raising the possibility that cluster 3 neurons also project to the striatum. lOFC neurons that project to the striatum likely mediate learning: ablating OFC projections to the ventral striatum during a reversal learning task demonstrated that this projection specifically supports learning from negative outcomes (Groman et al., 2019).
In reinforcement learning accounts of basal ganglia function, it is thought that cortical inputs to the striatum encode information about the state the animal is in, and corticostriatal synapses store the learned values of performing actions in particular states in their synaptic weights (i.e. Qvalues), which can be updated and modulated by dopaminedependent plasticity (Averbeck and Costa, 2017; Doya, 2000). Coincident activation of cortical inputs and striatal spiking can tag corticostriatal synapses for plasticity in the presence of dopamine (Yagishita et al., 2014). One reason that lOFC neurons might encode reward history at the time of choice is so that contextual inputs reflecting the animal’s state would include its recent reward history. We have previously shown that optogenetic perturbations of lOFC in this task, triggered when rats exited the center port, disrupted sequential trialbytrial learning effects (Constantinople et al., 2019a). These sequential learning effects are not optimal for decision making in this task, as trials were independent and contained explicitly cued reward contingencies. Suboptimal sequential biases are observed across species and domains (Blanchard et al., 2014; Croson and Sundali, 2005; Neiman and Loewenstein, 2011), and reflect an innate difficulty in judging true randomness in an environment (Nickerson, 2002). The neural circuits supporting these sequential biases could potentially derive from the subpopulation of lOFC neurons in cluster 3, which may mediate the effect of previous trials on the animal’s behavior either by influencing lOFC dynamics supporting the upcoming choice (Mochol et al., 2021), or via projections to the striatum that mediate learning.
Materials and methods
Animal subjects and behavior
Request a detailed protocolThe details for the animal subjects, behavioral task, and electrophysiological recordings have been described elsewhere (Constantinople et al., 2019a; Constantinople et al., 2019b). Briefly, neural recordings from three male LongEvans rats were used in this work. Animal use procedures were approved by the Princeton University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and carried out in accordance with National Institutes of Health standards.
Rats were trained in a highthroughput facility using a computerized training protocol. The task was performed in operant training boxes with three nose ports, each containing an LED. When the LED from the center port was illuminated, the animal was free to initiate a trial by poking his nose in that port (trial start epoch). While in the center port, rats were continuously presented with a train of randomly timed auditory clicks from a left and right speaker. The click trains were generated by Poisson processes with different underlying rates (Hanks et al., 2015); the rates from each speaker conveyed the water volume baited at each side port. Following a variable preflash interval ranging from 0 to 350 ms, rats were also presented with light flashes from the left and right side ports, where the number of flashes conveyed reward probability at each port. Each flash was 20 ms in duration, presented in fixed bins, and spaced every 250 ms to avoid perceptual fusion of consecutive flashes. After a variable postflash delay period from 0 to 500 ms, there was an auditory ‘go’ cue and the center LED turned back on. The animal was then free to leave the center port (exit center port epoch) and choose the left or right port to potentially collect reward (choice epoch).
Electrophysiology and data preprocessing for spike train analyses and model inputs
Request a detailed protocolTetrodes were constructed from twisted wires that were either PtIr (18 µm, California Fine Wire) or NiCr (25 µm, Sandvik). Tetrode tips were platinum or goldplated to reduce impedances to 100–250 kΩ at 1 kHz using a nanoZ (White Matter LLC). Microdrive assemblies were custommade as described previously (Aronov and Tank, 2014). Each drive contained eight independently movable tetrodes, plus an immobile PtIR reference electrode. Each animal was implanted over the right OFC. On the day of implantation, electrodes were lowered to 4.1 mm DV. Animals were allowed to recover for 2–3 weeks before recording. Shuttles were lowered 30–60 µm approximately every 2–4 days.
Data were acquired using a Neuralynx data acquisition system. Spikes were manually sorted using MClust software. Units with fewer than 1% interspike intervals less than 2 ms were deemed single units. For clustering and model fitting, we restricted our analysis to single units that had a mean firing rate greater that 1 Hz (659 units). To convert spikes to firing rates, spike counts were binned in 50 ms bins and smoothed using Matlab’s smooth.m function with a 250 ms moving window. Similarly, our neural response model fit spike counts in discretized bins of 50 ms. When parsing data into crossvalidated sets of trials balanced across conditions, a single trial was considered as the window of [–2,6]s around trial start. In all other analyses, conditional responses were calculated on trials with a window [–2,4]s for data aligned to trial start, and [–4,4]s for choicealigned or exit center portaligned responses.
Clustering of lOFC responses
Feature space parametrization
Request a detailed protocolTo analyze the heterogeneity in timedependent lOFC responses, our first clustering procedure utilized trialaveraged PSTHs from each neuron to construct the feature space for clustering. Specifically, for a set of $N$ neurons and trials of $T$ timepoints, we zscored the PSTH of each neuron and combined all responses into a matrix $Z\in {\mathbb{R}}^{N\times T}$, then performed PCA to obtain principal components, $W$, and score, $M$, as $Z=M{W}^{T}$. We found that $k=18$ components explained >95% of the covariance in $Z$ and used the first $k$ columns of $M$, the PSTH projected onto the top $k$ PC, as our feature space on which to perform clustering.
Our second clustering procedure used timeaveraged, conditional neural responses to construct the feature space for kmeans clustering. This is similar in form to the approach in Hirokawa et al., 2019. The feature space consisted of its zscored firing rate conditioned on choice, reward outcome, reward history, presented offer value (EV of left and right offers), and rewarded volume, in time bins that most often corresponded to differential encoding of each variable (Figure 2A and B). Specifically, we used conditional PSTHs that depend on a single condition, and marginalized away all other conditions. The conditions, ${X}^{(M)}={x}_{j}$, are grouped into three categories for our task. Choice and outcome information is $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\text{reward}}\mathbf{)}}\in \{\text{win,loss}\$, $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\text{rewardHistory}}\mathbf{)}}\in \{\text{previous Win,previous loss}\$, $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\text{choice}}\mathbf{)}}\in \{\text{left,right}\$. Presented offer attributes on left and right ports are the expected value of reward as $EV=pV$, where $p$ is reward probability conveyed through flashes, and $V$ is the volume offer conveyed through Poisson clicks. Values were binned on a log2 scale: $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{E}\mathbf{V}\mathbf{L}\mathbf{)}},{\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{E}\mathbf{V}\mathbf{R}\mathbf{)}}\in \{[0,6),[6,12),[12,24),[24,48]\mu \text{l}\$. Rewarded value is $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\text{rewVol}}\mathbf{)}}\in \{0,6,12,24,48\mu \text{l}\$.
The conditional PSTH responses were zscored, and then each conditional PSTH was averaged over the time window in which the behavioral variable was maximally encoded (dictated by peak location in CPD, see Materials and methods below) to obtain a conditional firing rate as a single feature for clustering. Specifically, the time windows for reward and reward volume information were averaged over $[0,3]s$ after reward delivery, $[1,2]s$ after trial start for reward history, $[0,1.5]s$ after exiting the center port for left/right choice, and $[1,0]s$ before the animal’s choice (i.e. entering the side port) for expected value of presented offers. These 19 features were combined and preprocessed using PCA in the same way as the PSTHbased clustering to yield 11 features.
Evaluation of kmeans cluster quality: gap statistic
Request a detailed protocolFor each clustering procedure, we utilized kmeans clustering to locate groups of functionally distinct responses in lOFC, and used the gap statistic criterion to determine a principled choice of the best number of clusters (evalclusters.m in Matlab) (Tibshirani et al., 2001). Specifically, we locate the largest cluster size $K$ for which there was a significant jump in gap score $Gap(K)$,
This is similar to a standard option in evalclusters.m (‘SearchMethod’ = ‘firstMaxSE’), which finds the smallest instance in which a nonsignificant jump in cluster size is located. The two methods often agree. Finally, we used 5000 samples for the reference distribution to ensure convergence of results in the gap statistic.
Alternative cluster evaluation metrics: silhouette score and adjusted Rand index (ARI)
Request a detailed protocolThe silhouette score calculates a weighted difference between inter and intracluster distances. It yields high values for data that are tightly packed in the feature space and also far away from neighboring clusters. Intracluster distances for a data point i quantify the similarity of data within a cluster as,
where $d(i,j)$ is the Euclidean distance between points i and $j$, and ${N}_{{C}_{i}}$ is the number of data points in cluster ${C}_{i}$. Similarly, the intercluster distance of data point i to data points of the closest neighboring cluster is given by
The silhouette score is given by
where $N$ is the number of data points. Silhouette scores were calculated in python using sklearn.metrics.silhouette_score with the default options (i.e, metric=‘euclidean’).
The adjusted Rand index is a measure of reproducibility of a dataset. In this context, it calculates the probability that two cluster labelings on related data would arise by chance. We calculated ARI in python using sklearn.metrics.adjusted_rand_score. To estimate statistics, we calculated ARI between a set of labels generated from our full dataset and a subsampled dataset for each cluster number $K$. We sampled 90% of the population without replacement, and generated 100 such datasets to get a distribution of ARI values for each value of $K$.
To study the behavior of the silhouette score in the same data regime as the lOFC neural data, we generated groundtruth datasets of $N=500$ data points with different ratios of withincluster and total data covariance. In particular, we generated datasets with a K = 5 clusters (100 data points per cluster) that had the same dimensionality (D = 121) and the same total data covariance as the neural data. These clusters had withincluster covariance that matched the average withincluster covariance of the lOFC data. We then preprocessed this surrogate data in the same manner as our true data by projecting onto the PC components capturing $\S gt;95\%$ variance (totaldata covariance and average withincluster covariance shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 6A,B), and performed silhouette score analysis in this dimensionalityreduced subspace. We investigated different ratios of withincluster and acrosscluster by scaling the totaldata covariance by a constant factor $(0.1,0.5,1,2,3,5)$ to determine to what extent the silhouette score can detect clusters that are tightly packed in the feature space. To gather statistics for each ratio of variances, we generated 100 datasets with random cluster means (drawn from a multivariate normal distribution) and plotted the mean ± s.e.m silhouette scores (Figure 2—figure supplement 6B). As a comparison, we also performed the gap statistic analysis on the same datasets (Figure 2—figure supplement 6C). Finally, we visualized the groupings of these clusters by nonlinear projections (tSNE) in a twodimensional feature space (Figure 2—figure supplement 6D).
Cluster labeling consistency and cluster similarity
Request a detailed protocolTo compare the consistency of results between the PSTH clustering and conditional clustering (Figure 2E), we calculated $P({C}_{\text{conditional}}{C}_{\text{PSTH}})$, the conditional probability of a neuron being assigned to cluster ${C}_{\text{conditional}}$ from the conditional clustering procedure, given that it was assigned to cluster ${C}_{\text{PSTH}}$ in the PSTH cluster procedure. We evaluated the similarity of clusters within a given clustering procedure in two ways. First, we performed TSNE embedding of the features space to visualize cluster similarity in two dimensions (sklearn.manifold.TSNE in python, perplexity = 50, n_iter = 5000) (Hinton and Roweis, 2002). We then colored each sample in this 2D space based on cluster identity (Figure 2—figure supplement 2A, B). We quantified the distance amongst clusters by calculating the cluster averaged Mahalanobis distance to the other clusters (Mahalanobis, 1936). The Mahalanobis distance ${D}_{M}(x)$ calculates the distance of a sample ${x}_{A}$ to a distribution $B$ with a known mean, ${\mu}_{B}$, and covariance, ${S}_{B}$:
The clusteraveraged distances in Figure 2—figure supplement 2C, D average ${D}_{M}$ over all samples from a given cluster $A$ as
PAIRS statistic
Request a detailed protocolTo test the null hypothesis that the data is not clustered at all, we followed the approach provided in Raposo et al., 2014. We used our preprocessed PSTH and conditional feature spaces that were dimensionality reduced using PCA, and further processed them with a whitening transform so that the data had zero mean and unit covariance. For each data point, we estimated the average angle with $k$ of its closest neighbors, ${\theta}_{\text{data}}$. We then compared the data to independent draws from a reference Gaussian distribution ($N(0,\mathbb{I}$)), with the same number of data points and the same dimensionality as our data. To gather statistics, we generated $N=10,000$ of these null model datasets, and aggregated the estimated angles ${\theta}_{\text{ref}}^{(n)}$ into a grand reference distribution. We chose our number of nearest neighbors $k$ for averaging by locating the $k$ such that our reference distribution had a median angle greater than $\pi /4$, following the approach in Raposo et al., 2014 (k=3 for PSTH clustering, k=8 for conditional clustering). Distributions of angles between neighboring datapoints are presented in Figure 2—figure supplement 4. We further quantified the similarity of these two distributions through a Kolmogorov Smirnov test.
PAIRS is a summary statistic of the entire population, using the median from the data distribution, ${\stackrel{~}{\theta}}_{\text{data}}$, and the median of the grand reference distributions ${\stackrel{~}{\theta}}_{\text{ref}}$,
Reference PAIRS statistics were generated for each of the reference data sets, and statistical significance of the PAIRS statistic was assessed by calculating the twosided p value for the data PAIRS compared to the distribution of reference PAIRS values. We assumed a normal distribution for the PAIRS reference values.
Generalized linear model of neural responses in lOFC
Our neural response model is a generalized linear model with an exponential link function that estimates the probability that spiking from a neuron will occur in time bin $t$ with a rate ${\lambda}_{t}$, and with Poisson noise, given a set of timedependent task parameters. Specifically, for a design matrix $\mathbf{X}$ with $S$ columns of task variables ${X}_{t}^{(s)}$, the probability of observing y_{t} spikes from a neuron in time bin $t+\mathrm{\Delta}t$ is modeled as,
where ${\lambda}_{t}$ is the rate parameter of the Poisson process. Task variables are linearly convolved with a set of response kernels ${k}_{s}(\tau )$ that allow for a timedependent response from a neuron that may occur after (causal) or before (acausal) the event in the trial. The kernels are composed of a set of ${N}_{s}$ basis functions, ${\varphi}_{s}^{(k)}$, linearly weighted by model parameters ${\theta}_{s}^{(k)}$:
Additionally, we include a parameter ${\theta}_{0}$ that captures the background firing rate of each neuron.
We used 15 timedependent task variables in our model that indicate both the timing of an event in the task, as well as behavioral or conditional information. Parameterization of the model in this manner with a onehot encoding of each condition per variable allows for asymmetric responses to different outcomes (e.g. wins vs. losses), and also captures the variable timing of each event in the task. The task variables were the following: (4) stimulus variables of left and right clicks and flashes (aligned to trial start). (4) Choice variables for choosing either the left of the right port (aligned to exit center port). Similarly, we included an alternate parameterization of choosing either the safe port ($p=1$) or the risky port ($p\S lt;1$). (5) Outcome variables were wins or losses on the current trial (aligned to choice); and reward history variables of previous wins, losses, or a previous optopt (aligned to trial start). We included a previous reward rate task variable that was calculated as the average rewarded volume from all previous trials in the session (aligned to trial start). We also included a ‘session progress’ variable as the normalized [0,1] trial number in the session (aligned to trial start). This covariate captures motivational or satiety effects on firing rate over the course of a session. Finally, model comparison of crossvalidated loglikelihood indicated that an autoregressive spikehistory kernel was not necessary for our model.
Parameter learning, hyperparameter choice, and model validation
Request a detailed protocolThe set of parameters $\theta $ of the model are the kernel weights ${\theta}_{s}^{(j)}$ and the background firing rate $\theta}_{0$, and were fit by minimizing $\mathcal{L}$, the negativelog likelihood $\mathrm{log}[p(y\theta )]$ with an additional L_{2} penalty acting as a prior over model parameters (Park et al., 2014):
Model parameters were chosen through fourfold cross validation, and $\xi $ was found through a grid search optimization on a heldout test set. Specifically, we split the data from each neuron into five equal parts that were balanced among trial contingencies (i.e. equal amounts of wins/losses, previous wins/losses, and left/right choices per partition). One partition (test set) was not utilized in fitting $\theta $, and was held out for later model comparison and hyperparameter choice. The remaining four partitions were used in cross validation to fit four models, with each model fit on three partitions and assessed on the fourth ‘validation’ partition. The model with the lowest negative loglikelihood on the validation set was chosen for further analysis. This procedure was repeated iteratively on an increasingly smaller grid of initial hyperparameter values $\xi \in [{10}^{5},10]$, and the hyperparameter yielding the lowest negative loglikelihood on the test partition was chosen. We chose this approach for hyperparameter optimization in lieu of approximations such as calculating evidence (Bishop, 2006), as we found the underlying approximations to be limiting for our data. In general, when building our model we assessed the aspects of other hyperparameter choices (i.e. kernel length, symmetric vs. asymmetric conditional kernels, number of task variables) with crossvalidated negative loglikelihood on heldout test data. See the model comparison section below for further details. Finally, kernel covariances and standard deviations were estimated using the inverse of the Hessian of $\mathcal{L}$.
Basis functions
Request a detailed protocolWe utilized a logscaled, raised cosine basis function set for our model (Park et al., 2014). These functions offer the ability to generate impulselike responses shortly after stimulus presentation, as well as broader, longer timescale effects. The form of the basis function is given as
where $a$ is parameter that controls breadth of support of each basis function, and b_{j} controls the location of its maxima. The parameters $a,{b}_{j}$ were chosen to spread the set of basis functions $\{{\varphi}_{j}\}$ in roughly a loglinear placement across their range of support. This gives a better coverage than linear spacing, as the basis functions increase in breadth as b_{j} increases. We used 7 such functions, and additionally augmented our basis set with two decaying exponential basis functions placed in the first two time bins to capture any impulselike behavior at the onset of the task variable. This gives $M=9$ basis functions for all kernels in the study. After a cursory model comparison of different kernel lengths we took a conservative approach and utilized a range of support of 4 s for each kernel.
Model comparison
Request a detailed protocolTo choose the bestfit model to our data, we performed model comparison on heldout testing data. For comparison, we considered models with additional task variables such as current and previously rewarded volume; as well as reduced models that omitted the variables relating to previous opt out trials, the previous reward rate, and the session progress. We also considered a reduced model that omitted the reward history contribution entirely. In each case, we assessed the population level change in model performance via a Wilcoxon signed rank test (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). Our chosen model demonstrated a significantly lower population median in its negative loglikelihood than other models. We note that while our chosen model performed better than the reduced model at the population level, the median changes in neural responses were relatively slight (Figure 3—figure supplement 1C, left panel). However, some neurons showed relatively strong improvement from introducing previousOptOut, previousRewardRate, and sessionProgress; which motivated us to keep them for the entire population (i.e., Figure 3—figure supplement 1C, middle panel). Additionally, we investigated a symmetrized form of our model that used a binary (±1) encoding of task variables, as opposed to a onehot encoding. This model was rejected at the population level via model comparison (not shown).
Coefficient of partial determination
Request a detailed protocolThe coefficient of partial determination (CPD) is a measure of the relative amount of % variance explained by a given covariate, and here we use it to quantify the encoding of behavioral information in single units. The CPD is defined as Miller et al., 2018:
where $SSE$ is the trialsummed, squared error between data and model. $\mathbf{X}}_{\text{all}$ refers to the full model with all covariates. $\mathbf{X}}_{i$ implies a reduced model with the effect of ${X}^{(i)}$ omitted. Since our model utilized a onehot encoding for each condition, we calculated CPD by omitting the following groups of covariates: $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\text{reward}}\mathbf{)}}\in \{{x}^{(\text{win})},{x}^{(\text{loss})}\$, $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\text{rewardHistory}}\mathbf{)}}\in \{{x}^{(\text{prevWin})},{x}^{(\text{prevLoss})},{x}^{(\text{prevOptOut})}\$, $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\text{choice}}\mathbf{)}}\in \{{x}^{(\text{left})},{x}^{(\text{right})}\$, $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\text{clicks}}\mathbf{)}}\in \{{x}^{(\text{Lclick})},{x}^{(\text{Rclick})}\$, $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\text{flashes}}\mathbf{)}}\in \{{x}^{(\text{Lflash})},{x}^{(\text{Rflash})}\$.
Our measure of CPD assessed the encoding of the covariate of interest (e.g., previous win or loss) separately from encoding of the general eventaligned response (e.g., trial start). As such, our reduced model averaged the kernels that corresponded to the eventaligned response to create behaviorally irrelevant task variables. For example, for CPD of reward encoding: ${X}_{t}^{(\text{win})},{X}_{t}^{(\text{loss})}\to \frac{1}{2}({X}_{t}^{(\text{win})}+{X}_{t}^{(\text{loss})})$. For reward, reward history, and choice CPD calculations, we additionally weighted each trial type in $SSE$ such that each condition contributed equally to CPD, and omitted any bias due to an imbalance in trial statistics. Due to data limitations, we utilized the full set of training, testing, and validation data to calculate CPD. Units with a model fit of ${R}^{2}\S gt;0$ (590/659 units) were used in CPD calculation. Additionally, we found that CPD measures for neurons can sometimes be noisy, and we further excluded neurons as outliers in the clusteraveraged CPD calculation if they had a CPD value >0.5. This excluded a further 10 neurons.
We assessed the significance of the CPD result by comparing it to a null distribution of 500 CPD values that were generated by shuffling the trial labels among the relevant covariates (e.g. shuffle win and loss labels across trials, keeping timing of event and all other covariates fixed). CPD was deemed significant if it fell outside of the onesided 95% confidence interval of the shuffle distribution, and plotted values in Figure 4 subtract off the mean of the shuffle distribution from the CPD.
Mutual information
Request a detailed protocolMutual information (MI) was used to calculate how much information about task variables is contained in lOFC firing rates, in different time windows throughout a trial. We calculated MI between spikes $\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathbf{t}$ and a group of covariates $\mathbf{X}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{m}\mathbf{)}}\in \{{x}_{i}\$ (detailed in the above section) as:
The first term is the entropy of the stimulus, which is calculated from the empirical distribution. The second term is the conditional entropy of spiking, and requires calculation of the conditional distribution $p({y}_{t}{X}^{(m)}={x}_{k})$ by marginalizing over the fully conditional distribution that contains all other covariates from the model.
We modeled the fully conditional distribution $p({y}_{t}{X}^{(1)},{X}^{(2)},...{X}^{(S)},...{X}^{(m)}={x}_{k})$ via sampling of a doubly stochastic process, in which normal distributions of model parameters were propagated through our GLM and Poisson spiking. Specifically, for each time bin within each trial we sampled 500 parameter values from the normal distribution for each $\theta $, where the covariance of $\theta $ was estimated as the inverse of the Hessian of $\mathcal{L}$. These samples were the passed through the exponential nonlinearity to generate a lognormal distribution of $\lambda $ values, which were used as the rate parameter for a Poisson process that generated spikes. This spiking distribution of 500 samples was truncated at 10 spikes/50 ms bin (a 200 Hz cutoff), and the conditional distribution $p({y}_{t}{X}^{(m)}={x}_{k})$ was then taken as the average over trials in which ${X}^{(m)}={x}_{k}$. Units with a model fit of ${R}^{2}\S gt;0$ were used in MI calculations. We assessed significance of MI in each time bin by comparing to an analogously created distribution of 500 MI values in which trial labels were shuffled. Significant MI fell outside of the 95% confidence interval of this distribution.
Waveform analysis
Request a detailed protocolTo investigate if different types of neurons may underlie different clusters, we extracted the action potential (AP) peak and afterhyperpolarization (AHP) peak from the waveform associated with each single unit. Waveforms were recorded on tetrodes, and the channel with the highest amplitude signal was used for waveform analysis. An initial manual curation of the waveforms excluded 18/659 units with poor isolation of the largestamplitude channel, due to damage of the electrode. The remaining waveforms were standardized by upsampling the waveform by a factor of 20, and then meansubtracting and normalizing by their maximum range. AP and AHP peaks were identified, then a threshold around zero ($\alpha =0.05$) was set to identify the beginning and end of the peak. We used the AP halfwidth rather than full width, as we found this to be a more robust measure of AP activity. Clustering of the two putative RSU and FSU units was performed using kmeans.
Discriminability for reward history
Request a detailed protocolThe discriminability between previous wins and previous losses in Figure 5C was calculated in its unsigned form
To account for an inflated range of nonsignificant ${d}^{\prime}$ values around zero due to the unsigned form of ${d}^{\prime}$, we subtracted from this quantity the mean ${d}^{\prime}$ of a trialshuffled distribution. The shuffled distribution was generated by shuffling trial labels 1,000 times. Significant ${d}^{\prime}$ values were identified as being outside of the onesided 95% confidence interval of the shuffled distribution. Trial types were balanced when generating the shuffle distributions.
Linear regression models of prechoice and postchoice epochs
Request a detailed protocolFor the linear regression of prechoice epoch in Figure 5—figure supplement 1, the model used the trial history of wins and losses on the previous five trials as regressors, $x}_{\mathrm{w}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}/\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}}^{(i)$, the choice on that trial, $x}_{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}}^{(n)$, and an offset term, c_{0}:
The regressors were binary +1/–1 variables for win( + 1)/loss(–1) outcomes and left( + 1)/right(–1) choice. Model coefficients $c$ were fit with Matlab’s fitlm function, and significance was assessed via an Ftest comparing to the baseline model containing only c_{0}. The significance of each coefficient was assessed via a ttest with a cutoff of $p\S lt;0.05$ for significance.
Similarly, the results in Figure 6 and Figure 6—figure supplement 2 investigating the adaptation of reward representations regressed r_{n}, the average firing rate in the 1 s interval after reward onset on each trial $n$ (postchoice epoch), against previous and current trial outcomes. The first model investigated adaptation of the rewarded outcome representation by including a binary win( + 1)/loss(–1) regressor for current trial reward outcome, a binary win( + 1)/loss(–1) regressor for previous reward outcome, the left( + 1)/right(–1) choice on that trial, and an offset term:
Similarly, the other model investigating adaptation of reward volume representations instead used a regressor for rewarded volume, and a binary loss(1/0) regressor for outcome on the current trial:
Finally, the regression in Figure 6—figure supplement 1 modeled the postchoice epoch using a reward prediction error as a regressor:
where the RPE regressor was the difference in rewarded volume and the expected value of the chosen option on that trial: ${x}_{\text{rpe}}^{(n)}={V}_{\text{reward}}^{(n)}{p}^{(n)}{V}_{\text{choose}}^{(n)}$.
Data availability
Physiology, behavior, GLM statistical modeling, and clustering results source data are publicly available on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5592702). Code for the GLM model fit, clustering, and all subsequent analysis will also be provided publicly via Github at https://github.com/constantinoplelab/published (copy archived at https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:rev:cd86802e0efc64e9d6b78408f260bd0982000b8c).

ZenodoSubpopulations of neurons in lOFC encode previous and current rewards at time of choice.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5592702
References

Motivational neural circuits underlying reinforcement learningNature Neuroscience 20:505–512.https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4506

Hothand bias in rhesus monkeysJournal of Experimental Psychology 40:280–286.https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000033

Normalization as a canonical neural computationNature Reviews. Neuroscience 13:51–62.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3136

Partial adaptation to the value range in the macaque orbitofrontal cortexThe Journal of Neuroscience 39:3498–3513.https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.227918.2019

An analysis of decision under risk in ratsCurrent Biology 29:2066–2074.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.05.013

The gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand: Empirical data from casinosJournal of Risk and Uncertainty 30:195–209.https://doi.org/10.1007/s1116600511532

Complementary roles of basal ganglia and cerebellum in learning and motor controlCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology 10:732–739.https://doi.org/10.1016/S09594388(00)001537

Orbitofrontal cortex and representation of incentive value in associative learningThe Journal of Neuroscience 19:6610–6614.https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.191506610.1999

Machine learning in APOGEE: Unsupervised spectral classification with KmeansAstronomy & Astrophysics 612:A98.https://doi.org/10.1051/00046361/201732134

BookClustering analysisIn: GarciaDias R, editors. Machine Learning. Elsevier. pp. 227–247.

Double dissociation of value computations in orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate neuronsNature Neuroscience 14:1581–1589.https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2961

Adaptation of reward sensitivity in orbitofrontal neuronsThe Journal of Neuroscience 30:534–544.https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.400909.2010

The root of all value: a neural common currency for choiceCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology 22:1027–1038.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.06.001

Efficient coding and the neural representation of valueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1251:13–32.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17496632.2012.06496.x

ConferenceProceedings of the National Institute of Sciences (Calcutta) National Institute of Science of India; 1936On the generalized distance in statistics.

Neural representation of behavioral outcomes in the orbitofrontal cortexCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology 19:84–91.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2009.03.010

Dorsal hippocampus contributes to modelbased planningNature Neuroscience 20:1269–1276.https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4613

Reinforcement learning in professional basketball playersNature Communications 2:1–8.https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1580

The production and perception of randomnessPsychological Review 109:330–357.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.109.2.330

Rangeadapting representation of economic value in the orbitofrontal cortexThe Journal of Neuroscience 29:14004–14014.https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.375109.2009

Neurobiology of economic choice: a goodbased modelAnnual Review of Neuroscience 34:333–359.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevneuro061010113648

Encoding and decoding in parietal cortex during sensorimotor decisionmakingNature Neuroscience 17:1395–1403.https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3800

Orbitofrontal lesions impair use of cueoutcome associations in a devaluation taskBehavioral Neuroscience 119:317–322.https://doi.org/10.1037/07357044.119.1.317

Prediction and decoding of retinal ganglion cell responses with a probabilistic spiking modelThe Journal of Neuroscience 25:11003–11013.https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.330505.2005

A categoryfree neural population supports evolving demands during decisionmakingNature Neuroscience 17:1784–1792.https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3865

Decoding subjective decisions from orbitofrontal cortexNature Neuroscience 19:973–980.https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4320

Optimal coding and neuronal adaptation in economic decisionsNature Communications 8:1–14.https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146701701373y

Orbitofrontal cortex and basolateral amygdala encode expected outcomes during learningNature Neuroscience 1:155–159.https://doi.org/10.1038/407

Natural image statistics and neural representationAnnual Review of Neuroscience 24:1193–1216.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.1193

Orbitofrontal neurons infer the value and identity of predicted outcomesNature Communications 5:1–13.https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4926

The road not taken: neural correlates of decision making in orbitofrontal cortexFrontiers in Neuroscience 6:131.https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00131

The orbitofrontal cortex: neuronal activity in the behaving monkeyExperimental Brain Research 49:93–115.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00235545

Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statisticJournal of the Royal Statistical Society 63:411–423.https://doi.org/10.1111/14679868.00293

Expected subjective value theory (esvt): A representation of decision under risk and certaintySSRN Electronic Journal 1:2783638.https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2783638

Neuronal activity in primate dorsolateral and orbital prefrontal cortex during performance of a reward preference taskThe European Journal of Neuroscience 18:2069–2081.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.14609568.2003.02922.x

Orbitofrontal cortex and its contribution to decisionmakingAnnual Review of Neuroscience 30:31–56.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094334

Transient inactivation of orbitofrontal cortex blocks reinforcer devaluation in macaquesThe Journal of Neuroscience 31:15128–15135.https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.329511.2011
Decision letter

Emilio SalinasReviewing Editor; Wake Forest School of Medicine, United States

Floris P de LangeSenior Editor; Radboud University, Netherlands

Emilio SalinasReviewer; Wake Forest School of Medicine, United States

Paul MassetReviewer
In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.
Decision letter after peer review:
Thank you for submitting your article "Subpopulations of neurons in lOFC encode previous and current rewards at time of choice" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, including Emilio Salinas as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Floris de Lange as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Paul Masset (Reviewer #2).
The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.
Essential revisions:
The reviewers agreed that this is a valuable and interesting study (see reviews below). They suggested additional analyses that would strengthen the main conclusion of the study, because the clustering methods are not conclusive about the presence of distinct subpopulations. The thought is that any additional evidence in support of the central claims would be helpful.
1) The authors should consider separation metrics that have been used in previous studies (the silhouette score and the adjusted rand index) and compare the optimal number of clusters found with these metrics with their analysis using the gap statistics. This would give better insight into the parameters controlling the complexity of the responses at the level of populations. See comment from Rev 2.
2) It would also be interesting if the authors compared the properties of neurons in cluster 3 to those of striatumprojecting neurons (and their associated cluster) found in a previous study (Hirokawa et al., 2019). Potentially, this could show that the clustering methods presented here can robustly identify similar populations of neurons across behavioral tasks, and would also provide a potential mechanistic basis for the learning effects mediated by OFC. See comment from Rev 2.
3) If data are available/appropriate, determine whether neurons have narrow or broad spikes, thus providing another potential criterion for characterizing the clusters. See comment from Rev 3.
4) In Figure 2C it seems that clusters largely differ by their late responses at the end of the trials. Does a cluster analysis based on the late parts of the PSTHs lead to similar results to those found? See comment from Rev 3.
5) The endorsement of adaptive value coding as something that OFC is dedicated to is perhaps a bit too optimistic, considering that only 15% of neurons demonstrated it (see comment from Rev 1). The authors should consider a more balanced discussion of this point.
6) The authors mention that the neurons in cluster 3 might support the integration of reward signals, but it is largely unclear why, especially from a computational point of view. Why do history and current trial reward signals ought to be integrated in this task? Spelling this out would be useful.
Reviewer #1:
This is a clear and concise manuscript that aims to understand the diversity of responses observed in the lOFC, a structure implicated in the assignment of value to different available choices, and in monitoring the outcomes of those choices. The work has many technical strengths:
– Multiple statistical methods and measures are used to determine whether there are identifiable neuronal types in lOFC, and what their distinct properties are.
– The methods are comprehensive, well described, and attempt a relatively unbiased, agnostic characterization of the recorded neural activity.
– The behavioral task is rich, and the results are a natural complement to a previous paper describing other aspects of this same dataset.
– The analysis is thorough. The conclusions are judicious, and are justified by the data.
Few weaknesses were noted. Perhaps the case in favor of adaptive coding is a bit exaggerated, but this is a minor issue of interpretation.
The most notable result is that one particular group of neurons encodes past reward history just before an impending choice, and may play a unique role in guiding or biasing the choice accordingly. Although this is not hugely surprising, and further experiments would be needed to prove this idea, it does demonstrate a high degree of order and functional specialization that would not be apparent without careful classification of neuronal properties. More generally, the methods and results should resonate with a wide audience, because classifying a large population of neurons into functionally significant subgroups is a problem that systems neuroscientists face in virtually every task and neural circuit.
Reviewer #2:
The firing patterns of single neurons in prefrontal cortex exhibit a large functional diversity. However, recent work has shown that behind this diversity there is significant structure and that this structure could be supported by the cell types and projection targets of prefrontal neurons. In this paper, the authors refine our understanding of this structure by developing new analysis methods. This paper reanalyzes single neuron data recorded in the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) in a complex behavioral task in which rats must choose between two options of varying reward probability and reward size. The authors' goal is to use dimensionality reduction methods and clustering to identify distinct neural subpopulations that underlie computations thought to be performed in OFC.
The authors use either the peristimulus time histograms (PSTHs) or tuning to specific task features to show that the populations of OFC neurons cluster in distinct subpopulations. Across the two methods, two clusters share a large number of cells, and one of these appears to carry a reward history signal. Just before the choice (and therefore the outcome of the current trial), one of the clusters exhibits an increased selectivity for the outcome of the previous trial. This is the kind of signal the authors were looking for and is consistent with the role of OFC in learning. The specificity here is that this signal is confined to a subpopulation of OFC neurons identified through the clustering procedure.
A key strength of the paper is that they use several methods to show that the structure they identify is robust to the features used for clustering and that the clusters exhibit a diversity of functional tuning to behaviorally relevant task parameters (reward, choice, etc). Specifically, they show that two major clusters of cells are conserved whether the clustering is performed on the temporal dynamics of the PSTHs or the tuning to task parameters. They then performed a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) analysis to identify the time course of tuning to several behaviorally relevant task variables. Again, they used two metrics of selectivity (coefficient of partial determination and mutual information) and these two metrics give similar results, strengthening their conclusions. Across the clusters the neurons exhibit broadly similar time courses of tuning. The two most striking departures from the population average occur for neurons in the two clusters that are most conserved across clustering techniques. This suggests that the neurons in these two clusters convey specific task related information. One of these clusters shows an increase in selectivity about the outcome in the previous trial right before the outcome in the current trial is revealed. This selectivity is highlighted as a possible contribution of this specific subpopulation to the known role of OFC in learning in uncertain environments.
This is an interesting paper that goes further than previous work in the prefrontal cortex in characterizing the structure of neuronal populations by using a novel combination of analysis techniques. However, the authors could perform a few additional analyses that would strengthen the paper, allow a more direct comparison with other results in the literature and bring more biological insights. The type of combined analysis presented here (clustering using different types of features, GLM reconstruction of the firing rates, etc) is likely to become a standard prerequisite when analyzing recordings from single neurons in behaving animals.
Comments for the authors:
The authors present a nice set of analyses that are well executed but a few more characterizations of the results could strengthen the biological findings.
1. As the authors point out, their analysis identifies fewer clusters than previous work attempting to cluster the functional properties of OFC neurons. The dimensionality of representations in neural circuits is thought to be partially constrained by task complexity and it would strengthen the authors' argument if they showed that this result holds across different cluster separation metrics. The authors should use both metrics that have been used in previous studies (the silhouette score and the adjusted rand index) and compare the optimal number of clusters found with these metrics with their analysis using the gap statistics. This would give a better insight into the parameters controlling the complexity of the responses at the level of populations. This comparison would provide some evidence as to whether the dimensionality is constrained by task complexity or by the structure of the neural circuits in prefrontal cortex and strengthen the biological findings in the paper.
2. On that note, it would be interesting if the authors compared the properties of neurons in cluster 3 to those of striatumprojecting neurons (and their associated cluster) found in a previous study (Hirokawa et al., 2019). Here, the authors show that neurons in cluster 3 have a strong response to the outcome (Figure 3) and to the reward history (Figure 4). Furthermore, they have an elevated firing rate prior to the trial start (Figure 1). It would be interesting to see the PSTHs for these neurons into the next trial separated by whether the trial was rewarded or not. If these neurons follow the same pattern as the striatumprojecting neurons in the previous study, it could indicate that the clustering method presented here can robustly identify similar populations of neurons across behavioral tasks. This would also provide a potential mechanistic basis for the learning effects mediated by OFC.
Reviewer #3:
I think this is a welldone analysis, but I see some potential limitations in the methods and in the conclusions. First, it is unclear whether the observed clusters actually correspond to distinct neuronal types, or whether they are just functionally different. One potential analysis (if data is available) is to study whether neurons have narrow or broad spikes, thus giving additional insights as to the nature of the clusters.
In Figure 2C it looks that clusters largely differ by their late responses at the end of the trials. Does a cluster analysis based on the late parts of the PSTHs lead to similar results to those found?
The authors show that cluster 3 exhibit the most prominent response to reward, but based on the PSTH clustering, the difference is very small. In addition, the increase in CPD for encoding reward history (Figure 5) is very small, although real. In principle I don't have any problems with the small effect sizes but, given that the authors make somehow strong claims about that, I am worried about the implications of the observation. The authors claim that this might support integration of reward signals, but it is largely unclear why, especially from a computational point of view: why do history and current trial reward signals ought to be integrated in this task?
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70129.sa1Author response
Essential revisions:
The reviewers agreed that this is a valuable and interesting study (see reviews below). They suggested additional analyses that would strengthen the main conclusion of the study, because the clustering methods are not conclusive about the presence of distinct subpopulations. The thought is that any additional evidence in support of the central claims would be helpful.
1) The authors should consider separation metrics that have been used in previous studies (the silhouette score and the adjusted rand index) and compare the optimal number of clusters found with these metrics with their analysis using the gap statistics. This would give better insight into the parameters controlling the complexity of the responses at the level of populations. See comment from Rev 2.
We investigated the silhouette score and adjusted rand index for our features space representation of lOFC responses. Both methods suggested that 2 clusters were present in our dataset. Using additional analyses we demonstrated that neither method is wellsuited to make a principled choice of cluster size for our lOFC response. The adjusted rand index, a measure of reproducibility of a clustering result, demonstrated that a large range of cluster sizes (28) could be robustly identified in our data, including our primary result of 5 clusters. Therefore, the results from this metric were not definitive about the number of clusters. The silhouette score did not have a clear peak for a specific number of clusters, and instead exhibited a monotonic decay for larger cluster numbers. The silhouette score is known to be inaccurate in certain data regimes (see GarciaDias et al., 2018 and 2020), and should be utilized only when the silhouette score results are definitive. The silhouette score is designed to locate clustered data that is both tightly packed together within a cluster, but also well separated and distanced from neighboring clusters. We hypothesized that this penalty for “crowded” clusters may be responsible for our inconclusive silhouette score result, and performed a study on groundtruth data with varying cluster spacing. We found that the silhouette score consistently underestimated the number of clusters in this study in the regime of lOFC responses, and reproduced the same decaying silhouette score values as in our data. We also found that the gap statistic underestimated the number of clusters in ground truth data, but did so to a much lesser degree. This conservative estimation of cluster numbers may be responsible for the discrepancy between our result of 5 clusters, and larger cluster numbers from other groups (e.g., Hirokawa et al. 2019).
The changes to the manuscript were the following:
– Reporting of the silhouette score and adjusted rand index is given in a Figure 2figure supplement 5.
– Results of a groundtruth synthetic data study of the silhouette score is provided in Figure 2figure supplement 6.
– A comparison of these methods, as well as a justification for utilizing the gap statistic over the other methods, is provided in the Results section.
– A description of how we calculated the silhouette score and ARI is provided in the Methods section.
– A description of the groundtruth study formulation is provided in the Methods section.
2) It would also be interesting if the authors compared the properties of neurons in cluster 3 to those of striatumprojecting neurons (and their associated cluster) found in a previous study (Hirokawa et al., 2019). Potentially, this could show that the clustering methods presented here can robustly identify similar populations of neurons across behavioral tasks, and would also provide a potential mechanistic basis for the learning effects mediated by OFC. See comment from Rev 2.
We investigated if particular clusters in our data had similar encoding properties to the striatumprojecting neurons that were identified in (Hirokawa et al., 2019). In that work, those neurons encoded the reward outcome following reward delivery, with larger responses for unrewarded trials, and also persistently encoded negative integrated value during the intertrial interval until the start of the next trial. We evaluated the clusteraveraged responses for different reward volumes at reward delivery and trial start, and found that while several clusters encoded reward outcome after reward delivery, only cluster 3 also encoded the magnitude of reward volume during the intertrial interval. Moreover, cluster 3 neurons exhibited qualitatively similar encoding to the corticostriatal cells from Hirokawa et al., in which they exhibited smaller responses for larger rewards, and the largest responses following unrewarded trials. We believe that this cluster may correspond to striatumprojecting neurons. We discuss these implications, including the possibility of a neural substrate of sequential learning effects, further in the Discussion section.
The changes to the manuscript were the following:
– We included a new section in the Results section that describes the corticostriatal projection neurons and their encoding properties from Hirokawa et al., 2019, and added Figure 7 to the Results section, which compares our clusteraveraged responses for different reward volumes.
– We discuss the implications of cluster 3 being a potential set of striatumprojecting neurons in the Discussion section.
– We added this primary result to the abstract of the manuscript.
3) If data are available/appropriate, determine whether neurons have narrow or broad spikes, thus providing another potential criterion for characterizing the clusters. See comment from Rev 3.
We have included additional analysis on the waveform. We adopted an analysis from Bruno and Simons (J. Neuroscience, 2002) in which we compared the widths of the action potential (AP) and the afterhyperpolarization (AHP) activity. Similar to that work, we found two clusters of neurons when looking at AP and AHP: One cluster of neurons contained shorter AP and AHP activity, while a second cluster contained slower AP and AHP activity. When using AP and AHP widths as potential criterion for further characterizing our 5 clusters from the main text of the manuscript, we found no relationship between slow or fast single units and our 5 clusters. Specifically, we found that the distribution of the two cell types was similar across clusters.
The changes to the manuscript were the following:
– We added Figure 4figure supplement 1, which shows the distribution of putative regular and fastspiking cells across clusters, as well as details of the waveform analysis.
– We added a description of how we performed the analysis in the Methods Section.
– We added a brief section to the Results section.
4) In Figure 2C it seems that clusters largely differ by their late responses at the end of the trials. Does a cluster analysis based on the late parts of the PSTHs lead to similar results to those found? See comment from Rev 3.
We performed clustering based on PSTHs aligned to when the animal leaves the center port to make a choice. Assessment of cluster size using the Gap statistic yielded a similar number of clusters, K=6. The partitioning of units based on choicealigned PSTHs was very similar to that based on PSTHs aligned to the start of the trial. Furthermore, it revealed a noteworthy, finerscale structure to the reward history encoding seen late in the trial: The additional cluster from this analysis partitioned reward history encoding to just before choice (cluster 3), and precisely at choice (cluster 5). Given that this was the only major distinction between encoding of task attributes between the two clustering approaches, we have kept our original analyses, using responses aligned to trial start, in the main text, and have added the results of this lateintrial clustering to the Supplemental Information.
The changes to the manuscript were the following:
– We added the results of this new clustering approach in Figure 5figure supplement 2, and mentioned them in the Results section.
5) The endorsement of adaptive value coding as something that OFC is dedicated to is perhaps a bit too optimistic, considering that only 15% of neurons demonstrated it (see comment from Rev 1). The authors should consider a more balanced discussion of this point.
The changes to the manuscript were the following:
– We have relaxed our interpretation of adaptive value coding being dedicated to OFC in the Discussion section. We acknowledge that 15% is a modest fraction of neurons, and emphasize that adaptive value coding is probably not specific to OFC, but occurs broadly in brain areas representing subjective value.
6) The authors mention that the neurons in cluster 3 might support the integration of reward signals, but it is largely unclear why, especially from a computational point of view. Why do history and current trial reward signals ought to be integrated in this task? Spelling this out would be useful.
Given the new result that cluster 3 neurons exhibit qualitatively similar responses to striatumprojection neurons (Hirokawa et al., 2019), we have included a discussion of how these representations of reward history and current reward outcome may affect trialbytrial learning. Specifically, we discuss the implications of these coincident signals in the context of reinforcement learning accounts of the basal ganglia, in which corticostriatal projection neurons may be representing information about the animal’s state, and corticostriatal synapses represent that value of performing particular actions in that state (Qvalues). Coincident activation of cortical inputs and striatal spiking would allow synapses to be tagged for plasticity in the presence of dopamine, thereby modulating stateaction values with experience. We speculate that if reward history and current trial reward signals are coincidently represented, then contextual inputs to the striatum that reflect the animal's “state,” and that could be plastically modified in the presence of dopamine, would include the conjunction of previous and current rewards (i.e., I was rewarded on the previous trial, and then rewarded again. I am on a winning streak).
While there is no need for trialbytrial learning in this task, as reward contingencies are independent and explicitly cued on each trial, the evolutionary importance of learning about changes in dynamic environments may introduce these suboptimal, sequential biases.
An alternative possibility, which we also discuss, is that the representations of reward history at the time of choice influence ongoing neural dynamics in lOFC or downstream that support the current choice, as in Mochol et al., 2021.
The changes to the manuscript were the following:
– We added additional text to the Discussion section where we describe representations of reward history.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70129.sa2Article and author information
Author details
Funding
National Institute of Mental Health (R00MH111926)
 Christine M Constantinople
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH125571)
 Cristina Savin
 Christine M Constantinople
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
 Christine M Constantinople
KlingensteinSimons Fellowship Award in Neuroscience
 Christine M Constantinople
National Science Foundation (1922658)
 Cristina Savin
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Acknowledgements
We thank Carla Golden, Alex Piet, Abby Muthusamy, and Anne Churchland for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript.
Ethics
This study was performed in accordance with the National Institutes of Health standards. Animal use procedures were approved by the Princeton University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #1853).
Senior Editor
 Floris P de Lange, Radboud University, Netherlands
Reviewing Editor
 Emilio Salinas, Wake Forest School of Medicine, United States
Reviewers
 Emilio Salinas, Wake Forest School of Medicine, United States
 Paul Masset
Publication history
 Received: May 14, 2021
 Accepted: October 20, 2021
 Accepted Manuscript published: October 25, 2021 (version 1)
 Version of Record published: November 25, 2021 (version 2)
Copyright
© 2021, Hocker et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics

 1,593
 Page views

 295
 Downloads

 3
 Citations
Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: PubMed Central, Crossref, Scopus.
Download links
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)
Further reading

 Neuroscience
A new imaging method reveals previously undetected structural differences that may contribute to developmental language disorder.

 Neuroscience
Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by receptive or expressive language difficulties or both. While theoretical frameworks and empirical studies support the idea that there may be neural correlates of DLD in frontostriatal loops, findings are inconsistent across studies. Here, we use a novel semiquantitative imaging protocol – multiparameter mapping (MPM) – to investigate microstructural neural differences in children with DLD. The MPM protocol allows us to reproducibly map specific indices of tissue microstructure. In 56 typically developing children and 33 children with DLD, we derived maps of (1) longitudinal relaxation rate R1 (1/T1), (2) transverse relaxation rate R2* (1/T2*), and (3) Magnetization Transfer saturation (MTsat). R1 and MTsat predominantly index myelin, while R2* is sensitive to iron content. Children with DLD showed reductions in MTsat values in the caudate nucleus bilaterally, as well as in the left ventral sensorimotor cortex and Heschl’s gyrus. They also had globally lower R1 values. No group differences were noted in R2* maps. Differences in MTsat and R1 were coincident in the caudate nucleus bilaterally. These findings support our hypothesis of corticostriatal abnormalities in DLD and indicate abnormal levels of myelin in the dorsal striatum in children with DLD.