Sources of noise during accumulation of evidence in unrestrained and voluntarily head-restrained rats

  1. Ben B Scott
  2. Christine M Constantinople
  3. Jeffrey C Erlich
  4. David W Tank
  5. Carlos D Brody  Is a corresponding author
  1. Princeton University, United States
  2. New York University Shanghai, China

Abstract

Decision-making behavior is often characterized by substantial variability, but its source remains unclear. We developed a visual accumulation of evidence task designed to quantify sources of noise and to be performed during voluntary head restraint, enabling cellular resolution imaging in future studies. Rats accumulated discrete numbers of flashes presented to the left and right visual hemifields and indicated the side that had the greater number of flashes. Using a signal-detection theory-based model, we found that the standard deviation in their internal estimate of flash number scaled linearly with the number of flashes. This indicates a major source of noise that, surprisingly, is not consistent with the widely used 'drift-diffusion modeling' (DDM) approach but is instead closely related to proposed models of numerical cognition and counting. We speculate that this form of noise could be important in accumulation of evidence tasks generally.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ben B Scott

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, New Jersey, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Christine M Constantinople

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, New Jersey, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jeffrey C Erlich

    NYU-ECNU Institute of Brain and Cognitive Science, New York University Shanghai, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. David W Tank

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, New Jersey, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Carlos D Brody

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, New Jersey, United States
    For correspondence
    brody@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Naoshige Uchida, Harvard University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal use procedures were approved by the Princeton University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) (Protocol #1837 and #1853). These procedures were carried out in accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health.

Version history

  1. Received: September 2, 2015
  2. Accepted: December 15, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 17, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 1, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Scott 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

  • 4,197
    views
  • 1,096
    downloads
  • 72
    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. Ben B Scott
  2. Christine M Constantinople
  3. Jeffrey C Erlich
  4. David W Tank
  5. Carlos D Brody
(2015)
Sources of noise during accumulation of evidence in unrestrained and voluntarily head-restrained rats
eLife 4:e11308.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11308

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11308

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.