How many neurons are sufficient for perception of cortical activity?

Abstract

Many theories of brain function assume that information is encoded and behaviour is controlled through sparse, distributed patterns of activity. It is therefore crucial to place a lower bound on the amount of neural activity that can drive behaviour and to understand how neuronal networks operate within these constraints. We use an all-optical approach to test this lower limit by driving behaviour with targeted two-photon optogenetic activation of small ensembles of L2/3 pyramidal neurons in mouse barrel cortex while using two-photon calcium imaging to record the impact on the local network. By precisely titrating the number of neurons in activated ensembles we demonstrate that the lower bound for detection of cortical activity is ~14 pyramidal neurons. We show that there is a very steep sigmoidal relationship between the number of activated neurons and behavioural output, saturating at only ~37 neurons, and that this relationship can shift with learning. By simultaneously measuring activity in the local network, we show that the activation of stimulated ensembles is balanced by the suppression of neighbouring neurons. This surprising behavioural sensitivity in the face of potent network suppression supports the sparse coding hypothesis and suggests that perception of cortical activity balances a trade-off between minimizing the impact of noise while efficiently detecting relevant signals.

Data availability

Import, processing, analysis and figure code is available on Github (Dalgleish, 2020; https://github.com/alloptical/Dalgleish-eLife-2020) for use with analysed data (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13135505) and/or unprocessed behavioural session data (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13128950). Raw calcium imaging movies are ~1TB in size and are thus available upon reasonable request.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Henry William Peter Dalgleish

    Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Lloyd E Russell

    Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6332-756X
  3. Adam Max Packer

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5884-794X
  4. Arnd Roth

    Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0325-4287
  5. Oliver M Gauld

    Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Francesca Greenstreet

    Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Emmett J Thompson

    Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Michael Häusser

    Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    m.hausser@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2673-8957

Funding

ERC (695709)

  • Michael Häusser

Wellcome Trust (201225)

  • Michael Häusser

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Brice Bathellier, CNRS, France

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures were carried out under Project Licence 70/14018 (PCC4A4ECE) issued by the UK Home Office in accordance with the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986) and were also subject to local ethical review. All surgical procedures were carried out under isoflurane anaesthesia (5% for induction, 1.5% for maintenance), and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Version history

  1. Received: May 13, 2020
  2. Accepted: October 17, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 26, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 27, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Dalgleish 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

  • 12,582
    views
  • 1,700
    downloads
  • 87
    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. Henry William Peter Dalgleish
  2. Lloyd E Russell
  3. Adam Max Packer
  4. Arnd Roth
  5. Oliver M Gauld
  6. Francesca Greenstreet
  7. Emmett J Thompson
  8. Michael Häusser
(2020)
How many neurons are sufficient for perception of cortical activity?
eLife 9:e58889.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58889

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58889

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Maximilian Nagel, Marco Niestroj ... Marc Spehr
    Research Article

    In most mammals, conspecific chemosensory communication relies on semiochemical release within complex bodily secretions and subsequent stimulus detection by the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Urine, a rich source of ethologically relevant chemosignals, conveys detailed information about sex, social hierarchy, health, and reproductive state, which becomes accessible to a conspecific via vomeronasal sampling. So far, however, numerous aspects of social chemosignaling along the vomeronasal pathway remain unclear. Moreover, since virtually all research on vomeronasal physiology is based on secretions derived from inbred laboratory mice, it remains uncertain whether such stimuli provide a true representation of potentially more relevant cues found in the wild. Here, we combine a robust low-noise VNO activity assay with comparative molecular profiling of sex- and strain-specific mouse urine samples from two inbred laboratory strains as well as from wild mice. With comprehensive molecular portraits of these secretions, VNO activity analysis now enables us to (i) assess whether and, if so, how much sex/strain-selective ‘raw’ chemical information in urine is accessible via vomeronasal sampling; (ii) identify which chemicals exhibit sufficient discriminatory power to signal an animal’s sex, strain, or both; (iii) determine the extent to which wild mouse secretions are unique; and (iv) analyze whether vomeronasal response profiles differ between strains. We report both sex- and, in particular, strain-selective VNO representations of chemical information. Within the urinary ‘secretome’, both volatile compounds and proteins exhibit sufficient discriminative power to provide sex- and strain-specific molecular fingerprints. While total protein amount is substantially enriched in male urine, females secrete a larger variety at overall comparatively low concentrations. Surprisingly, the molecular spectrum of wild mouse urine does not dramatically exceed that of inbred strains. Finally, vomeronasal response profiles differ between C57BL/6 and BALB/c animals, with particularly disparate representations of female semiochemicals.

    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.