Abstract

Most perceptual decisions require comparisons between current input and an internal template. Classic studies propose that templates are encoded in sustained activity of sensory neurons. However, stimulus encoding is itself dynamic, tracing a complex trajectory through activity space. Which part of this trajectory is pre-activated to reflect the template? Here we recorded magneto- and electroencephalography during a visual target-detection task, and used pattern analyses to decode template, stimulus, and decision-variable representation. Our findings ran counter to the dominant model of sustained pre-activation. Instead, template information emerged transiently around stimulus onset and quickly subsided. Cross-generalization between stimulus and template coding, indicating a shared neural representation, occurred only briefly. Our results are compatible with the proposal that template representation relies on a matched filter, transforming input into task-appropriate output. This proposal was consistent with a signed difference response at the perceptual decision stage, which can be explained by a simple neural model.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nicholas Edward Myers

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    nicholas.myers@ohba.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Gustavo Rohenkohl

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Valentin Wyart

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Mark W Woolrich

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Anna Christina Nobre

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Mark G Stokes

    Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael J Frank, Brown University, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: Ethical approval for methods and procedures was obtained from the Central University Research Ethics Committee of the University of Oxford. All participants provided written, informed consent.

Version history

  1. Received: May 28, 2015
  2. Accepted: December 13, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 14, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 2, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Myers 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

  • 3,252
    views
  • 787
    downloads
  • 95
    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. Nicholas Edward Myers
  2. Gustavo Rohenkohl
  3. Valentin Wyart
  4. Mark W Woolrich
  5. Anna Christina Nobre
  6. Mark G Stokes
(2015)
Testing sensory evidence against mnemonic templates
eLife 4:e09000.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09000

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09000

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kenta Abe, Yuki Kambe ... Tatsuo Sato
    Research Article

    Midbrain dopamine neurons impact neural processing in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) through mesocortical projections. However, the signals conveyed by dopamine projections to the PFC remain unclear, particularly at the single-axon level. Here, we investigated dopaminergic axonal activity in the medial PFC (mPFC) during reward and aversive processing. By optimizing microprism-mediated two-photon calcium imaging of dopamine axon terminals, we found diverse activity in dopamine axons responsive to both reward and aversive stimuli. Some axons exhibited a preference for reward, while others favored aversive stimuli, and there was a strong bias for the latter at the population level. Long-term longitudinal imaging revealed that the preference was maintained in reward- and aversive-preferring axons throughout classical conditioning in which rewarding and aversive stimuli were paired with preceding auditory cues. However, as mice learned to discriminate reward or aversive cues, a cue activity preference gradually developed only in aversive-preferring axons. We inferred the trial-by-trial cue discrimination based on machine learning using anticipatory licking or facial expressions, and found that successful discrimination was accompanied by sharper selectivity for the aversive cue in aversive-preferring axons. Our findings indicate that a group of mesocortical dopamine axons encodes aversive-related signals, which are modulated by both classical conditioning across days and trial-by-trial discrimination within a day.

    1. Neuroscience
    Baiwei Liu, Zampeta-Sofia Alexopoulou, Freek van Ede
    Research Article

    Working memory enables us to bridge past sensory information to upcoming future behaviour. Accordingly, by its very nature, working memory is concerned with two components: the past and the future. Yet, in conventional laboratory tasks, these two components are often conflated, such as when sensory information in working memory is encoded and tested at the same location. We developed a task in which we dissociated the past (encoded location) and future (to-be-tested location) attributes of visual contents in working memory. This enabled us to independently track the utilisation of past and future memory attributes through gaze, as observed during mnemonic selection. Our results reveal the joint consideration of past and future locations. This was prevalent even at the single-trial level of individual saccades that were jointly biased to the past and future. This uncovers the rich nature of working memory representations, whereby both past and future memory attributes are retained and can be accessed together when memory contents become relevant for behaviour.