Abstract
The brain transforms physical sensory stimuli into meaningful perceptions. In animals making choices about sensory stimuli, neuronal activity in successive cortical stages reflects a progression from sensation to decision. Feedforward and feedback pathways connecting cortical areas are critical for this transformation. However, the computational functions of these pathways are poorly understood because pathway-specific activity has rarely been monitored during a perceptual task. Using cellular-resolution, pathway-specific imaging, we measured neuronal activity across primary (S1) and secondary (S2) somatosensory cortices of mice performing a tactile detection task. S1 encoded the stimulus better than S2, while S2 activity more strongly reflected perceptual choice. S1 neurons projecting to S2 fed forward activity that predicted choice. Activity encoding touch and choice propagated in an S1–S2 loop along feedforward and feedback axons. Our results suggest that sensory inputs converge into a perceptual outcome as feedforward computations are reinforced in a feedback loop.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
de Lafuente, V. & Romo, R. Neural correlate of subjective sensory experience gradually builds up across cortical areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 14266–14271 (2006).
Felleman, D.J. & Van Essen, D.C. Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cereb. Cortex 1, 1–47 (1991).
Gilbert, C.D. & Li, W. Top-down influences on visual processing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 350–363 (2013).
Bastos, A.M. et al. Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron 76, 695–711 (2012).
Cauller, L. Layer I of primary sensory neocortex: where top-down converges upon bottom-up. Behav. Brain Res. 71, 163–170 (1995).
Hopfield, J.J. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79, 2554–2558 (1982).
Douglas, R.J., Koch, C., Mahowald, M., Martin, K.A. & Suarez, H.H. Recurrent excitation in neocortical circuits. Science 269, 981–985 (1995).
Seung, H.S. in The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks 94–97 (MIT Press, 2003).
Murphy, B.K. & Miller, K.D. Balanced amplification: a new mechanism of selective amplification of neural activity patterns. Neuron 61, 635–648 (2009).
Wang, X.J. Probabilistic decision making by slow reverberation in cortical circuits. Neuron 36, 955–968 (2002).
Douglas, R.J. & Martin, K.A. Opening the grey box. Trends Neurosci. 14, 286–293 (1991).
Glickfeld, L.L., Andermann, M.L., Bonin, V. & Reid, R.C. Cortico-cortical projections in mouse visual cortex are functionally target specific. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 219–226 (2013).
Petreanu, L. et al. Activity in motor-sensory projections reveals distributed coding in somatosensation. Nature 489, 299–303 (2012).
Chen, J.L., Carta, S., Soldado-Magraner, J., Schneider, B.L. & Helmchen, F. Behaviour-dependent recruitment of long-range projection neurons in somatosensory cortex. Nature 499, 336–340 (2013).
Chen, J.L. et al. Pathway-specific reorganization of projection neurons in somatosensory cortex during learning. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1101–1108 (2015).
Yamashita, T. et al. Membrane potential dynamics of neocortical projection neurons driving target-specific signals. Neuron 80, 1477–1490 (2013).
Yamashita, T. & Petersen, C.Ch. Target-specific membrane potential dynamics of neocortical projection neurons during goal-directed behavior. Elife 5, e15798 (2016).
Makino, H. & Komiyama, T. Learning enhances the relative impact of top-down processing in the visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1116–1122 (2015).
Suter, B.A. & Shepherd, G.M. Reciprocal interareal connections to corticospinal neurons in mouse M1 and S2. J. Neurosci. 35, 2959–2974 (2015).
Carvell, G.E. & Simons, D.J. Thalamic and corticocortical connections of the second somatic sensory area of the mouse. J. Comp. Neurol. 265, 409–427 (1987).
Carvell, G.E. & Simons, D.J. Somatotopic organization of the second somatosensory area (SII) in the cerebral cortex of the mouse. Somatosens. Res. 3, 213–237 (1986).
Kleinfeld, D. & Delaney, K.R. Distributed representation of vibrissa movement in the upper layers of somatosensory cortex revealed with voltage-sensitive dyes. J. Comp. Neurol. 375, 89–108 (1996).
Kwegyir-Afful, E.E. & Keller, A. Response properties of whisker-related neurons in rat second somatosensory cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 92, 2083–2092 (2004).
Zuo, Y. et al. Complementary contributions of spike timing and spike rate to perceptual decisions in rat S1 and S2 cortex. Curr. Biol. 25, 357–363 (2015).
Chen, J.L., Voigt, F.F., Javadzadeh, M., Krueppel, R. & Helmchen, F. Long-range population dynamics of anatomically defined neocortical networks. Elife 5, e14679 (2016).
Chen, T.W. et al. Ultrasensitive fluorescent proteins for imaging neuronal activity. Nature 499, 295–300 (2013).
Britten, K.H., Newsome, W.T., Shadlen, M.N., Celebrini, S. & Movshon, J.A. A relationship between behavioral choice and the visual responses of neurons in macaque MT. Vis. Neurosci. 13, 87–100 (1996).
Parker, A.J. & Newsome, W.T. Sense and the single neuron: probing the physiology of perception. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 227–277 (1998).
Nienborg, H., Cohen, M.R. & Cumming, B.G. Decision-related activity in sensory neurons: correlations among neurons and with behavior. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 35, 463–483 (2012).
Shadlen, M.N., Britten, K.H., Newsome, W.T. & Movshon, J.A. A computational analysis of the relationship between neuronal and behavioral responses to visual motion. J. Neurosci. 16, 1486–1510 (1996).
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J.H. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction 2nd edn. (Springer, 2009).
Huber, D. et al. Multiple dynamic representations in the motor cortex during sensorimotor learning. Nature 484, 473–478 (2012).
Cohen, M.R. & Kohn, A. Measuring and interpreting neuronal correlations. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 811–819 (2011).
Clancy, K.B., Schnepel, P., Rao, A.T. & Feldman, D.E. Structure of a single whisker representation in layer 2 of mouse somatosensory cortex. J. Neurosci. 35, 3946–3958 (2015).
Aronoff, R. et al. Long-range connectivity of mouse primary somatosensory barrel cortex. Eur. J. Neurosci. 31, 2221–2233 (2010).
Cauller, L.J., Clancy, B. & Connors, B.W. Backward cortical projections to primary somatosensory cortex in rats extend long horizontal axons in layer I. J. Comp. Neurol. 390, 297–310 (1998).
Mao, T. et al. Long-range neuronal circuits underlying the interaction between sensory and motor cortex. Neuron 72, 111–123 (2011).
Yang, H., Kwon, S.E., Severson, K.S. & O'Connor, D.H. Origins of choice-related activity in mouse somatosensory cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 127–134 (2016).
Guo, Z.V. et al. Flow of cortical activity underlying a tactile decision in mice. Neuron 81, 179–194 (2014).
Sachidhanandam, S., Sreenivasan, V., Kyriakatos, A., Kremer, Y. & Petersen, C.C. Membrane potential correlates of sensory perception in mouse barrel cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 1671–1677 (2013).
Theyel, B.B., Llano, D.A. & Sherman, S.M. The corticothalamocortical circuit drives higher-order cortex in the mouse. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 84–88 (2010).
Manita, S. et al. A top-down cortical circuit for accurate sensory perception. Neuron 86, 1304–1316 (2015).
Engel, T.A., Chaisangmongkon, W., Freedman, D.J. & Wang, X.J. Choice-correlated activity fluctuations underlie learning of neuronal category representation. Nat. Commun. 6, 6454 (2015).
Sato, T.R. & Svoboda, K. The functional properties of barrel cortex neurons projecting to the primary motor cortex. J. Neurosci. 30, 4256–4260 (2010).
El-Shamayleh, Y., Kumbhani, R.D., Dhruv, N.T. & Movshon, J.A. Visual response properties of V1 neurons projecting to V2 in macaque. J. Neurosci. 33, 16594–16605 (2013).
Movshon, J.A. & Newsome, W.T. Visual response properties of striate cortical neurons projecting to area MT in macaque monkeys. J. Neurosci. 16, 7733–7741 (1996).
Smolyanskaya, A., Haefner, R.M., Lomber, S.G. & Born, R.T. A modality-specific feedforward component of choice-related activity in MT. Neuron 87, 208–219 (2015).
Barth, A.L. & Poulet, J.F. Experimental evidence for sparse firing in the neocortex. Trends Neurosci. 35, 345–355 (2012).
Ramirez, A. et al. Spatiotemporal receptive fields of barrel cortex revealed by reverse correlation of synaptic input. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 866–875 (2014).
Peron, S.P., Freeman, J., Iyer, V., Guo, C. & Svoboda, K. A cellular resolution map of barrel cortex activity during tactile behavior. Neuron 86, 783–799 (2015).
Dana, H. et al. Thy1-GCaMP6 transgenic mice for neuronal population imaging in vivo. PLoS One 9, e108697 (2014).
Hippenmeyer, S. et al. A developmental switch in the response of DRG neurons to ETS transcription factor signaling. PLoS Biol. 3, e159 (2005).
Madisen, L. et al. A toolbox of Cre-dependent optogenetic transgenic mice for light-induced activation and silencing. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 793–802 (2012).
O'Connor, D.H. et al. Neural coding during active somatosensation revealed using illusory touch. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 958–965 (2013).
Pologruto, T.A., Sabatini, B.L. & Svoboda, K. ScanImage: flexible software for operating laser scanning microscopes. Biomed. Eng. Online 2, 13 (2003).
O'Connor, D.H., Peron, S.P., Huber, D. & Svoboda, K. Neural activity in barrel cortex underlying vibrissa-based object localization in mice. Neuron 67, 1048–1061 (2010).
Kerlin, A.M., Andermann, M.L., Berezovskii, V.K. & Reid, R.C. Broadly tuned response properties of diverse inhibitory neuron subtypes in mouse visual cortex. Neuron 67, 858–871 (2010).
Davison, A.C. & Hinkley, D.V. Bootstrap Methods and their Application (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).
Acknowledgements
We thank V. Jayaraman, R. Kerr, D. Kim, L. Looger, K. Svoboda and the HHMI Janelia Farm GENIE Project for GCaMP6. We thank S. Peron for MATLAB software, T. Shelley for instrument fabrication, and K. Severson and E. Finkel for mouse husbandry. We thank E. Finkel, D. Xu, K. Severson, B. Bari, M. Chevee, K. Svoboda, S. Brown, J. Cohen and S. Mysore for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Whitehall Foundation, Klingenstein Fund, the Johns Hopkins Science of Learning Institute, NIH grant R01NS089652 (D.H.O.) and NIH core grant P30NS050274. G.M. was supported by a JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research Abroad.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.E.K. and D.H.O. planned the project. S.E.K. performed imaging, behavioral, and optogenetics experiments. H.Y. performed electrophysiology and optogenetics experiments. S.E.K. and D.H.O. analyzed data. G.M. established S2 targeting methods. S.E.K. and D.H.O. wrote the paper with comments from H.Y. and G.M.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Integrated supplementary information
Supplementary Figure 1 Behavioral task.
(a) Example session showing trials sorted by type. Ticks show lick times and are colored by trial type. Dashed line indicates auditory cue onset. Pink shading shows time window in which a single whisker was deflected on Hit and Miss trials. (b) Summary of mouse task performance across sessions used in imaging experiments (mean ± SEM). Each grey dot indicates a session. (c) Cumulative histogram of first-lick times from Hit trials (excluding those with premature licks; Online Methods) from trained mice during S1 (brown) and S2 (orange) imaging sessions. Thin lines represent pooled data from individual mice. Thick lines show mean histograms across mice. There was no significant difference in first-lick times between S1 and S2 sessions (D = 0.060, P = 0.436; 338 S1 and 502 S2 trials; Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). Dashed lines indicate median at 0.52 s.
Supplementary Figure 2 Fraction of responsive neurons encoding stimulus condition and/or choice.
Neurons (mean ± SEM across mice, from 12 sessions in S1, 10 sessions in S2) were tabulated into four categories based on DP and SP. “DP neurons” and “SP neurons” are those with 95% confidence intervals not including 0.5. Includes 274 ± 72 (mean ± SEM across mice) neurons per mouse for S1, 103 ± 26 for S2.
Supplementary Figure 3 Simultaneous imaging of S1 and S2.
(a) Left, View through a cranial imaging window implanted over S1 and S2 of a transgenic mouse (GP 4.3) expressing GCaMP6s under the Thy1 promoter. Middle, Intrinsic signal image resulting from deflection of a single whisker (B3), showing locations of S1 and S2 (brown and orange arrows, respectively). Right, Wide-field imaging of GCaMP6s shows evoked fluorescence signal in areas that overlap with those identified by ISI, confirming the locations of S1 and S2. (b) Example field of view used for simultaneous imaging of S1 and S2. (c) Example fluorescence traces concatenated across trials from S1 and S2 within the same mouse. Conventions as in Fig. 1f. (d) Example traces showing responses of an S1 neuron (top of each pair) and an S2 neuron (bottom). Traces are grouped by trial type. Dashed lines: onset of whisker stimulus. (e) Activity (mean ± SEM ΔF/F0 across 4 mice, 11 sessions total) averaged across each trial type from S1 (left, 57 ± 13 neurons per mouse, 226 total), or S2 (right, 54 ± 16 neurons per mouse, 214 total). S1 and S2 data were acquired simultaneously. Conventions as in Fig. 2a. In both S1 and S2, evoked ΔF/F0 responses on Hits were larger than on Misses (Hit – Miss mean ± [95% CI]: S1: 0.046 ± [0.035, 0.058] ΔF/F0; S2: 0.053 ± [0.035, 0.074] ΔF/F0; 11 sessions total from 4 mice; S1: t(225) = 10.60, P = 1.53 × 10−21; S2: t(213) = 7.76, P = 3.50 × 10−13; paired t-tests). (f) Mean evoked ΔF/F0 responses normalized to Hits across individual neurons in S1 and S2 (mean ± SEM across mice; circles show individual mice). The Miss/Hit response ratio was smaller in S2 compared to S1 (0.41 ± 0.06 vs 0.62 ± 0.07; z = 2.72, **P = 0.006; 226 neurons in S1; 214 neurons in S2; Wilcoxon rank sum test). (g) Cumulative histograms of noise correlations for individual pairs of S1 and S2 neurons (one neuron in each area) in Hit trials and in Miss trials. (Hit median: 0.11, Miss median: 0.09; Hit – Miss mean ± [95% CI]: 0.025 ± [0.017, 0.033]. (h) Mean noise correlations across pairs comprising an S1 neuron and an S2 neuron were slightly higher on Hits compared with Misses (0.12 ± 0.02 vs 0.10 ± 0.02, mean ± SEM across sessions; **P < 2 × 10−5; 4,910 pairs; permutation test; Hit – Miss mean ± [95% CI]: 0.025 ± [0.017, 0.033]). (i) Left, SP was higher in S1 (medians: 0.67 vs 0.65; **P = 0.003; permutation test). Middle, DP was similar in S1 and S2 (S1 median: 0.64; S2 median: 0.64; P = 0.392; permutation test). Right, The DP/SP ratio was higher in S2 (the effect was mainly due to distribution tails; S1 3rd quartile: 1.02; S2 3rd quartile: 1.04; S1 median: 0.97; S2 median: 0.98; *P = 0.023; permutation test on 3rd quartile). (j) Performance of a classifier (mean ± SEM across mice) in decoding the stimulus condition (present vs absent) from population activity at each time point. Decoding was done with each area separately (brown or orange) or with the two areas combined (black). Performance diverged for S1 & S2 combined decoder (74 ± 2%) vs individual decoders for S1 (69 ± 2%; R = 7, P = 0.037) or S2 (67 ± 6%; R = 2, P = 0.005; one-tailed Wilcoxon sign rank tests) at 0.05 s after stimulus onset. Conventions as in Fig. 2k. (k) Same as in j for decoding choice (lick vs no-lick). Decoding of choice was slightly better in S2 compared with S1 (76 ± 0.3% vs 67 ± 2% at 0.15 s; R = 41, P = 0.014; one-tailed Wilcoxon sign rank test). Performance diverged for S1 & S2 combined decoder (79 ± 1%) vs individual decoders for S1 (74 ± 1%; R = 7, P = 0.037) or S2 (76 ± 1%; R = 3, P = 0.010; one-tailed Wilcoxon sign rank tests) at 0.32 s. (i-j) Includes 9 sessions total from 3 mice (2 sessions from 1 mouse were excluded because we obtained < 3 responsive neurons in the S2 field of view).
Supplementary Figure 4 Axon clustering.
(a) Example distribution of correlation coefficients among ΔF/F0 traces from all varicosities from a session. Inset: Zoomed region showing highly correlated varicosities. Red dashed line: threshold used for clustering. (b) High correlation coefficients were exhibited by a subset of varicosities that could be identified with visual inspection as belonging to the same axon. (c) Example traces from varicosities assigned to the same cluster. (d) Fractions of varicosities that were successfully assigned to a cluster for each session.
Supplementary Figure 5 Optogenetic silencing of S1 or S2.
Behavioral task performance in the absence (black) or presence (blue) of photostimulation. Plot symbol type shows photostimulation target area (S1, circles; S2, squares; control area, diamonds). Faint symbols indicate individual mice (n = 4). Bold symbols with error bars indicate mean ± SEM across mice. Data for each mouse are means over 2–4 behavioral sessions.
Supplementary Figure 7 Pre-stimulus activity.
To examine pre-stimulus activity, ΔF/F0 was calculated as (F−F0)/F0 where F0 was the mean over 5 baseline frames immediately preceding the auditory cue onset (frames 17:21 with auditory cue onset at frame 22). Evoked ΔF/F0 was calculated as the mean ΔF/F0 over 6 frames preceding the stimulus onset (frames 45:50 with stimulus onset between frames 52 and 53). Gray plot symbols show individual mice. Bars show means across mice. Mean ± 95% CI on Hit – Miss ΔF/F0: S1: −0.005 ± [−0.011, 3.33 × 10−4]; S2: 5.33 × 10−4 ± [−0.008, 0.009].
Supplementary Figure 8 High-speed video recording of whisking and licking.
(a) Example images acquired by high-speed video (250 Hz, 1000 frames per trial) in parallel with calcium imaging. Video allowed monitoring whisker and tongue movements. (b) To examine the effect of whisking/licking on neural activity, videos were manually inspected (51 total Go trials), and those trials that showed negligible movement prior to the median reaction time (∼0.5 s) were selected (24 trials). Example fluorescence traces are shown for three Hit trials (blue) and three Miss trials (black) that met our criterion. First dashed line indicates stimulus onset. Second dashed line indicates median reaction time (0.52 s after the stimulus onset). (c) Data from one session showing activity (mean ± SEM ΔF/F0 across neurons) for all Hit (blue) and all Miss (black) trials. (d) Activity (mean ± SEM ΔF/F0 across neurons) for all Hit and Miss trials with negligible movement. Green shading indicates time window devoid of whisking/licking.
Supplementary Figure 9 SP and DP values are similar when calculated using different choices of post-stimulus frames.
(a) Each row of cumulative histograms (means across mice) shows SP (left panel), DP (middle) and DP/SP ratio (right) calculated based on an evoked ΔF/F0 response measured in different 5-frame windows. The frames defining each window, and the corresponding times from stimulus onset, are indicated to the left of each row. The measurement window begins immediately after that used in Fig. 2d, and extends until approximately 917 ms following stimulus onset. Aside from choice of window, calculation of SP and DP was identical to that used in Fig. 2d (Methods). S1: 12 sessions, 5 mice, 498 ± 74 neurons per mouse; S2: 11 sessions, 5 mice, 294 ± 47 neurons per mouse. The pattern of responses is similar to that shown in Fig. 2d for all windows. P values with D statistics in parentheses: row 1: P = 2.20 × 10−4 (0.070), P = 0.060 (0.044), P = 0.002 (0.060); row 2: P = 5.14 × 10−7 (0.090), P = 0.060 (0.044), P = 0.002 (0.060), row 3: P = 9.76 × 10−6 (0.081), P = 0.041 (0.046), P = 7.15 × 10−5 (0.074), row 4: P = 8.17 × 10−8 (0.096), P = 0.051 (0.045), P = 1.76 × 10−4 (0.071). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.005; Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests. (b) Time series of SP, DP and their ratio calculated frame-by-frame (mean ± SEM across mice). Conventions as in Fig. 2.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Figures
Supplementary Figures 1–9 (PDF 4191 kb)
Supplementary Methods Checklist
Reporting Checklist for Nature Neuroscience (PDF 446 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kwon, S., Yang, H., Minamisawa, G. et al. Sensory and decision-related activity propagate in a cortical feedback loop during touch perception. Nat Neurosci 19, 1243–1249 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4356
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4356
This article is cited by
-
Behavior-relevant top-down cross-modal predictions in mouse neocortex
Nature Neuroscience (2024)
-
Propagation of activity through the cortical hierarchy and perception are determined by neural variability
Nature Neuroscience (2023)
-
Behaviorally relevant decision coding in primary somatosensory cortex neurons
Nature Neuroscience (2022)
-
Nonlinear collision between propagating waves in mouse somatosensory cortex
Scientific Reports (2021)
-
A continuum of invariant sensory and behavioral-context perceptual coding in secondary somatosensory cortex
Nature Communications (2021)