Subpopulations of neurons in lOFC encode previous and current rewards at time of choice

  1. David L Hocker  Is a corresponding author
  2. Carlos D Brody
  3. Cristina Savin
  4. Christine M Constantinople
  1. New York University, United States
  2. Princeton University, United States

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 downstreamtargets. However, it is unclear whether reward history, which may subserve lOFC's well-documented role in learning, is represented by functional subpopulations in lOFC. Previously, we analyzed neural recordings from rats performing a value-based decision-making task, and we documented trial-by-trial 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 trial-averaged 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 trial-by-trial learning.

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 atgithub.com/constantinoplelab/published/

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David L Hocker

    Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    dh148@nyu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3091-421X
  2. Carlos D Brody

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4201-561X
  3. Cristina Savin

    Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Christine M Constantinople

    Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4435-4460

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

Klingenstein-Simons 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.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: 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).

Copyright

© 2021, Hocker et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,860
    views
  • 447
    downloads
  • 23
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

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

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

  1. David L Hocker
  2. Carlos D Brody
  3. Cristina Savin
  4. Christine M Constantinople
(2021)
Subpopulations of neurons in lOFC encode previous and current rewards at time of choice
eLife 10:e70129.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70129

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70129

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Victoria JH Ritvo, Alex Nguyen ... Kenneth A Norman
    Research Article

    What determines when neural representations of memories move together (integrate) or apart (differentiate)? Classic supervised learning models posit that, when two stimuli predict similar outcomes, their representations should integrate. However, these models have recently been challenged by studies showing that pairing two stimuli with a shared associate can sometimes cause differentiation, depending on the parameters of the study and the brain region being examined. Here, we provide a purely unsupervised neural network model that can explain these and other related findings. The model can exhibit integration or differentiation depending on the amount of activity allowed to spread to competitors — inactive memories are not modified, connections to moderately active competitors are weakened (leading to differentiation), and connections to highly active competitors are strengthened (leading to integration). The model also makes several novel predictions — most importantly, that when differentiation occurs as a result of this unsupervised learning mechanism, it will be rapid and asymmetric, and it will give rise to anticorrelated representations in the region of the brain that is the source of the differentiation. Overall, these modeling results provide a computational explanation for a diverse set of seemingly contradictory empirical findings in the memory literature, as well as new insights into the dynamics at play during learning.

    1. Neuroscience
    Marine Schimel, Ta-Chu Kao, Guillaume Hennequin
    Research Article

    During delayed ballistic reaches, motor areas consistently display movement-specific activity patterns prior to movement onset. It is unclear why these patterns arise: while they have been proposed to seed an initial neural state from which the movement unfolds, recent experiments have uncovered the presence and necessity of ongoing inputs during movement, which may lessen the need for careful initialization. Here, we modeled the motor cortex as an input-driven dynamical system, and we asked what the optimal way to control this system to perform fast delayed reaches is. We find that delay-period inputs consistently arise in an optimally controlled model of M1. By studying a variety of network architectures, we could dissect and predict the situations in which it is beneficial for a network to prepare. Finally, we show that optimal input-driven control of neural dynamics gives rise to multiple phases of preparation during reach sequences, providing a novel explanation for experimentally observed features of monkey M1 activity in double reaching.