Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Multimodal neural recordings with Neuro-FITM uncover diverse patterns of cortical–hippocampal interactions

Abstract

Many cognitive processes require communication between the neocortex and the hippocampus. However, coordination between large-scale cortical dynamics and hippocampal activity is not well understood, partially due to the difficulty in simultaneously recording from those regions. In the present study, we developed a flexible, insertable and transparent microelectrode array (Neuro-FITM) that enables investigation of cortical–hippocampal coordinations during hippocampal sharp-wave ripples (SWRs). Flexibility and transparency of Neuro-FITM allow simultaneous recordings of local field potentials and neural spiking from the hippocampus during wide-field calcium imaging. These experiments revealed that diverse cortical activity patterns accompanied SWRs and, in most cases, cortical activation preceded hippocampal SWRs. We demonstrated that, during SWRs, different hippocampal neural population activity was associated with distinct cortical activity patterns. These results suggest that hippocampus and large-scale cortical activity interact in a selective and diverse manner during SWRs underlying various cognitive functions. Our technology can be broadly applied to comprehensive investigations of interactions between the cortex and other subcortical structures.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Characterization of Neuro-FITM.
Fig. 2: Simultaneous multimodal recordings from the hippocampus and cortex.
Fig. 3: The neuron spike waveforms in different recording sessions from one mouse.
Fig. 4: SNR for the spikes, LFPs and wide-field fluorescence.
Fig. 5: Cortical activity onset tends to precede SWRs.
Fig. 6: Diverse SWR-associated cortical activity patterns.
Fig. 7: Different cortical activity patterns associated with distinct hippocampal neuronal activity patterns during SWRs.

Data availability

Data are available upon request from the authors. The Allen Brain Atlas could be accessed through Brain Explorer 2: http://mouse.brain-map.org/static/brainexplorer. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The codes for ripple detection, two-stage TCA and the pairwise decoding of cortical patterns are available at https://github.com/xinliuucsd/hippocampus-cortex.

References

  1. 1.

    Skelin, I., Kilianski, S. & McNaughton, B. L. Hippocampal coupling with cortical and subcortical structures in the context of memory consolidation. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 160, 21–31 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Buzsáki, G. Hippocampal sharp wave-ripple: a cognitive biomarker for episodic memory and planning. Hippocampus 25, 1073–1188 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Todorova, R. & Zugaro, M. Hippocampal ripples as a mode of communication with cortical and subcortical areas. Hippocampus https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22997 (2018).

  4. 4.

    Logothetis, N. K. et al. Hippocampal–cortical interaction during periods of subcortical silence. Nature 491, 547–553 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jadhav, S. P., Kemere, C., German, P. W. & Frank, L. M. Awake hippocampal sharp-wave ripples support spatial memory. Science 336, 1454–1458 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Maingret, N., Girardeau, G., Todorova, R., Goutierre, M. & Zugaro, M. Hippocampo-cortical coupling mediates memory consolidation during sleep. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 959–964 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Girardeau, G., Benchenane, K., Wiener, S. I., Buzsáki, G. & Zugaro, M. B. Selective suppression of hippocampal ripples impairs spatial memory. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 1222–1223 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sirota, A., Csicsvari, J., Buhl, D. & Buzsáki, G. Communication between neocortex and hippocampus during sleep in rodents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 2065–2069 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rothschild, G., Eban, E. & Frank, L. M. A cortical–hippocampal–cortical loop of information processing during memory consolidation. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 251–259 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Ji, D. & Wilson, M. A. Coordinated memory replay in the visual cortex and hippocampus during sleep. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 100–107 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Jadhav, S. P., Rothschild, G., Roumis, D. K. & Frank, L. M. Coordinated excitation and inhibition of prefrontal ensembles during awake hippocampal sharp-wave ripple events. Neuron 90, 113–127 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Chrobak, J. & Buzsáki, G. Selective activation of deep layer (V–VI) retrohippocampal cortical neurons during hippocampal sharp waves in the behaving rat. J. Neurosci. 14, 6160–6170 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Williams, A. H. et al. Unsupervised discovery of demixed, low-dimensional neural dynamics across multiple timescales through tensor component analysis. Neuron 98, 1099–1115 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Cortes, C. & Vapnik, V. Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20, 273–297 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Won, S. M. et al. Recent advances in materials, devices, and systems for neural interfaces. Adv. Mater. 30, 1800534 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Thunemann, M. et al. Deep 2-photon imaging and artifact-free optogenetics through transparent graphene microelectrode arrays. Nat. Commun. 9, 2035 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lu, Y. et al. Ultralow impedance graphene microelectrodes with high optical transparency for simultaneous deep two-photon imaging in transgenic mice. Adv. Funct. Mater. 28, 1800002 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Jun, J. J. et al. Fully integrated silicon probes for high-density recording of neural activity. Nature 551, 232–236 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kuzum, D. et al. Transparent and flexible low noise graphene electrodes for simultaneous electrophysiology and neuroimaging. Nat. Commun. 5, 5259 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wekselblatt, J. B., Flister, E. D., Piscopo, D. M. & Niell, C. M. Large-scale imaging of cortical dynamics during sensory perception and behavior. J. Neurophysiol. 115, 2852–2866 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Makino, H. et al. Transformation of cortex-wide emergent properties during motor learning. Neuron 94, 880–890 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Shobe, J. L., Claar, L. D., Parhami, S., Bakhurin, K. I. & Masmanidis, S. C. Brain activity mapping at multiple scales with silicon microprobes containing 1,024 electrodes. J. Neurophysiol. 114, 2043–2052 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Yang, Y. et al. Improved calcium sensor GCaMP-X overcomes the calcium channel perturbations induced by the calmodulin in GCaMP. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–18 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chu, M. W., Li, W. L. & Komiyama, T. Balancing the robustness and efficiency of odor representations during learning. Neuron 92, 174–186 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cichy, R. M., Pantazis, D. & Oliva, A. Resolving human object recognition in space and time. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 455 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kamitani, Y. & Tong, F. Decoding the visual and subjective contents of the human brain. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 679–685 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Yan, Y. et al. Perceptual training continuously refines neuronal population codes in primary visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1380–1387 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Morcos, A. S. & Harvey, C. D. History-dependent variability in population dynamics during evidence accumulation in cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1672–1681 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S. & Vapnik, V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46, 389–422 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Xu, H. et al. Acute in vivo testing of a conformal polymer microelectrode array for multi-region hippocampal recordings. J. Neural Eng. 15, 016017 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Fiáth, R. et al. Long-term recording performance and biocompatibility of chronically implanted cylindrically-shaped, polymer-based neural interfaces. Biomed. Eng./Biomedizinische Tech. 63, 301–315 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Yin, M. et al. Wireless neurosensor for full-spectrum electrophysiology recordings during free behavior. Neuron 84, 1170–1182 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Kim, C. et al. A 3 mm × 3 mm fully integrated wireless power receiver and neural interface system-on-chip. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circ. Syst. 13, 1736–1746 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Zhou, A. et al. A wireless and artefact-free 128-channel neuromodulation device for closed-loop stimulation and recording in non-human primates. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 15–26 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Cogan, S. F. Neural stimulation and recording electrodes. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 10, 275–309 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kim, T.-i et al. Injectable, cellular-scale optoelectronics with applications for wireless optogenetics. Science 340, 211–216 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Anikeeva, P. et al. Optetrode: a multichannel readout for optogenetic control in freely moving mice. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 163–170 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Olafsdottir, H. F., Carpenter, F. & Barry, C. Task demands predict a dynamic switch in the content of awake hippocampal replay. Neuron 96, 925–935.e926 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wierzynski, C. M., Lubenov, E. V., Gu, M. & Siapas, A. G. State-dependent spike-timing relationships between hippocampal and prefrontal circuits during sleep. Neuron 61, 587–596 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Euston, D. R., Tatsuno, M. & McNaughton, B. L. Fast-forward playback of recent memory sequences in prefrontal cortex during sleep. Science 318, 1147–1150 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Wilber, A. A., Skelin, I., Wu, W. & McNaughton, B. L. Laminar organization of encoding and memory reactivation in the parietal cortex. Neuron 95, 1406–1419.e1405 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hahn, T. T., Sakmann, B. & Mehta, M. R. Differential responses of hippocampal subfields to cortical up-down states. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5169–5174 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Tang, W., Shin, J. D., Frank, L. M. & Jadhav, S. P. Hippocampal-prefrontal reactivation during learning is stronger in awake compared with sleep states. J. Neurosci. 37, 11789–11805 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Khodagholy, D., Gelinas, J. N. & Buzsáki, G. Learning-enhanced coupling between ripple oscillations in association cortices and hippocampus. Science 358, 369–372 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Gauthier, J. L. & Tank, D. W. A dedicated population for reward coding in the hippocampus. Neuron 99, 179–193 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Aronov, D., Nevers, R. & Tank, D. W. Mapping of a non-spatial dimension by the hippocampal-entorhinal circuit. Nature 543, 719–722 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    O’keefe, J. & Nadel, L. The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map (Clarendon Press, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Eichenbaum, H., Kuperstein, M., Fagan, A. & Nagode, J. Cue-sampling and goal-approach correlates of hippocampal unit activity in rats performing an odor-discrimination task. J. Neurosci. 7, 716–732 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Trouche, S. et al. A hippocampus–accumbens tripartite neuronal motif guides appetitive memory in space. Cell 176, 1393–1406. e1316 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Weltman, A., Yoo, J. & Meng, E. Flexible, penetrating brain probes enabled by advances in polymer microfabrication. Micromachines 7, 180 (2016).

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Patel, J., Schomburg, E. W., Berényi, A., Fujisawa, S. & Buzsáki, G. Local generation and propagation of ripples along the septotemporal axis of the hippocampus. J. Neurosci. 33, 17029–17041 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Roux, L., Hu, B., Eichler, R., Stark, E. & Buzsáki, G. Sharp wave ripples during learning stabilize the hippocampal spatial map. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 845–853 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Pachitariu, M., Steinmetz, N. A., Kadir, S. N., Carandini, M. & Harris, K. D. Fast and accurate spike sorting of high-channel count probes with KiloSort. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 29, 4448–4456 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Zutshi, I. et al. Recurrent circuits within medial entorhinal cortex superficial layers support grid cell firing. Nat. Commun. 9, 3701 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Diamantaki, M. et al. Manipulating hippocampal place cell activity by single-cell stimulation in freely moving mice. Cell Rep. 23, 32–38 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Musall, S., Kaufman, M. T., Juavinett, A. L., Gluf, S. & Churchland, A. K. Single-trial neural dynamics are dominated by richly varied movements. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1677–1686 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Pinto, L. et al. Task-dependent changes in the large-scale dynamics and necessity of cortical regions. Neuron 104, 810–824.e819 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Clancy, K. B., Orsolic, I. & Mrsic-Flogel, T. D. Locomotion-dependent remapping of distributed cortical networks. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 778–786 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Q. Chen, O. Arroyo and L. Hall for technical assistance, and members of the Kuzum and Komiyama labs for discussions. This research was supported by grants from the Office of Naval Research (grants N000142012405 and N00014162531), the National Science Foundation (NSF; grants ECCS-2024776, ECCS-1752241 and ECCS-1734940) and the NIH (grants R21 EY029466, R21 EB026180 and DP2 EB030992) to D.K., and grants from the NIH (grants R01 NS091010A, R01 EY025349, R01 DC014690, R21 NS109722 and P30 EY022589), Pew Charitable Trusts and David & Lucile Packard Foundation to T.K. Fabrication of the electrodes was performed at the San Diego Nanotechnology Infrastructure of UCSD, a member of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure, which is supported by the NSF (grant ECCS-1542148).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

This work was conceived by D.K. and T.K. Y. Lu and J.H.K. performed microelectrode array fabrication and characterization. C.R. and X.L. performed all animal experiments. X.L. and C.R. analyzed them, with contributions from Y.L., S.L., T.K. and D.K. X.L., C.R., D.K. and T.K. wrote the manuscript and all the authors edited it.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Takaki Komiyama or Duygu Kuzum.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Neuroscience thanks Benjamin Scott and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Microscope pictures of different Neuro-FITM probe designs.

a, Microscope image of the recording tip of 32 channel Neuro-FITM array with 20 μm spacing. b, Same as (a), but for 64 channel Neuro-FITM array with 20 μm spacing. c, Picture of the whole probe (left), the microscope pictures of the recording tip of 32 channel Neuro-FITM array with 100 μm spacing (middle) and 20 μm spacing (right) for recording in rats. d, Same as c, but for 32 channel Neuro-FITM array with 100 μm spacing and 50 μm spacing for recording in primates.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Testing the multimodal recording setup using Neuro-FITM and standard silicon probes under both the wide-field and 2-photon imaging systems.

a, A picture of the probes tested in the multimodal recording setup. b, Pictures of the side view under the 2-photon imaging system. Neuro-FITM can be completely bent to the side as shown with the blue dashed line. Both the Neuronexus probes and the Neuropixel probe prevent the lowering of microscope objective (total rigid part indicated by red double arrow). The right column are the 2-photon images of the array surface, showing the thin Au wires, the boundary of the array substrate, and the penetration point. c, Pictures of the experimental setup (top), the zoom-in side view (middle), and the field of view (bottom) under wide-field imaging system, showing the blocking of field of view (Neuronexus probes) and preventing the lowering of microscope objective (Neuropixel probe). Wide-field image shows that mostly transparent Neuro-FITM does not block the field of view or generate shadows.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Implantation of Neuro-FITM array to hippocampus in in vivo experiments and the spike waveforms of example neurons.

a, Surgical setup of array implantation in actual experiments. Note that the array shank is largely invisible. The edge of the shank is marked by yellow dashed lines. b, The staining results of 6 mice, showing the successful penetration to the CA1 pyramidal layer. Arrowheads: trajectory in CA1 pyramidal layer. c, The spike waveforms of a few example neurons recorded from different animals. Single neurons can be detected in multiple adjacent channels, each exhibiting different waveform amplitudes.

Extended Data Fig. 4 SWR-associated large-scale cortical activity.

a, Averaged cortical activity aligned to SWR onset in each animal. In all animals, the cortex exhibited broad activation around SWRs with the cortical activity rising before SWR onset. b, Mean activity in each cortical region aligned to SWR onset (mean ± s.e.m., across SWR events). Black dashed lines: SWR onset.

Extended Data Fig. 5 The distribution of time differences between SWR onset and activity onset in each cortical region.

The time differences (SWR onset-cortical activity onset: positive = cortex precedes SWR) formed a continuum around cortical activity onset. Note that the distribution was skewed to positive side in posterior cortical regions, suggesting cortical activity onset in posterior regions preceded SWR onset in a larger fraction of SWR events. Black lines: cortical activity onset.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Two-stage TCA algorithm.

a, Schematic of algorithm flow. b, Reconstruction error (rec. error) under different ranks of TCA model. c, The adjacency matrix before and after clustering. The 1,500 TCA patterns were obtained by the 100 runs of 15th order TCA with random initialization. Corr.: correlation. d, Number of assigned patterns in each cluster. Note that only the first 8 clusters had number of assigned patterns > 1. e, Reconstruction error (rec. error) of the original TCA algorithm with random initialization and the two-stage TCA algorithm with refined initialization (rank = 8). The reconstruction error given by the two-stage TCA model is smaller than that of the original TCA algorithm with random initialization (two-tailed rank-sum test, P=1.38×10−11, n = 100 repetitions for each algorithm), indicating that our two-stage TCA better captured the dynamics of cortical activity. f, Randomly selected 20 TCA patterns in each cluster for clusters 1-8. Patterns within each cluster exhibited similar spatiotemporal properties. Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 The two-stage TCA result and the cortical activation timing analysis for two patterns.

a, Factors generated by two-stage TCA algorithm. The high-dimensional data of SWR-associated activity from 16 cortical regions was decomposed into 3 factors. The region factors and time factors describe the spatial and temporal dynamics of cortical patterns respectively and the event factors measure the weighting of a given SWR event on the established set of patterns. b, Cortical activation timing for pattern 2 and pattern 5. Shown in each row are the pattern template (left), the average cortical activity for the events assigned to the pattern (middle), and the P-value maps (right) for all the cortical regions at [-1 s, 2 s] time interval aligned to SWR onset, showing significantly higher activity than baseline (-1 s) for most cortical regions.

Extended Data Fig. 8 The decoding accuracy of all cortical pattern pairs in each animal.

Many cortical pattern pairs can be distinguished from each other in each animal. The distinguishable pattern pairs are marked by asterisks (shuffling 2,000 times, one-tailed, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, see Methods for exact p values). B. acc.: balanced accuracy. Source data

Extended Data Fig. 9 Discriminant neurons in decoding cortical pattern identity and the fraction of distinguishable pairs using different neuron populations.

a, Discriminant neurons selected by feature elimination algorithm in decoding for each pattern pair. Note that the decoding often requires information from multiple hippocampal neurons, and all hippocampal neurons contributed to the decoding of some pattern pairs. b, The decoding results of cortical patterns using both the PYR and INT, the PYR only, and the INT only. Gray lines: the chance level fraction with P < 0.05. The chance level number of decodable pattern pairs (nc) was computed from the inverse of binomial cumulative distribution with probability 0.95 (one-sided binomial test, n = 28 pattern pairs). The chance level fraction was obtained by dividing nc with n = 28, the number of pattern pairs on which decoding was performed. PYR: pyramidal neurons, INT: interneurons. For PYR + INT, the p-values for mouse 1-6 are 2.24E-10, 5.10E-32, 5.10E-32, 2.60E-14, 9.17E-26, 8.42E-30. For PYR only, the p-values for mouse 1-6 are 1.26E-11, 8.42E-30, 9.63E-16, 0.16, 5.56E-7, 2.60E-14. For INT only, the p-values for mouse 1-6 are 0.76, 0.0023, 2.60E-14, 5.56E-7, 4.92E-5, 4.92E-5. Source data

Extended Data Fig. 10 Different cortical activity patterns associated with distinct hippocampal neuronal activity patterns during all SWRs.

a, Raster plots (spikes) and the peri-event time histograms of example hippocampal neurons. b, Decoding accuracy of all cortical pattern pairs from all 6 animals. Cortical pattern pairs that are significantly distinguishable based on hippocampus activity are marked by asterisks (shuffled 2,000 times, one-tailed, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, see Methods for exact p values). B. acc.: balanced accuracy. c, Fraction of distinguishable cortical pattern pairs in each animal. Gray lines: the chance level fraction with P < 0.05. The p-values for mouse 1-6 are 6.13×10−13, 1.99×10−34, 1.00×10−27, 2.60×10−14, 4.73×10–8, 9.17×10–26, n = 28 pattern pairs. d, Preference index and decoding accuracy between anterior (A)-posterior (P) and early (E) - late (L) pattern pairs. Left: preference index of discriminant hippocampus neurons between A-P pairs (pattern 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 5, and 3 vs. 6) or between E-L patterns (pattern 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, 2 vs. 3, 4 vs. 5, 4 vs. 6, and 5 vs. 6). Posterior patterns were associated with higher firing counts of discriminant neurons than the anterior patterns (two-tailed bootstrap test, 10,000 times, ***P(A-P)= 0.0005, n = 16 pattern pairs) while no significant differences were detected between early and late patterns (P(E-L) = 0.4380, n = 27 pattern pairs). Gray circles: preference index averaged over all neurons for each pair within each animal. Middle: same as Left but for individual discriminant neurons (two-tailed bootstrap test, 10,000 times, ***P(A-P) = 0, n = 71 neurons, P(E-L) = 0.3591, n = 129 neurons). Gray dots: preference index of individual discriminant neurons. Right: Decoding accuracy between A-P and E-L pairs was similar (two-tailed bootstrap test, 10,000 times, P = 0.4745, n = 16 pattern pairs for A-P, n = 27 pattern pairs for E-L). All error bars are s.e.m. Gray circles: decoding accuracy for each pair. Source data

Supplementary information

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

The impedance versus deposition time data, EIS result for the electrode and the noise versus impedance data.

Source Data Fig. 4

The SNR data for spikes, ripples and sharp waves.

Source Data Fig. 5

The average ΔF/F activity aligned to ripple onset, the time difference between ripple onset and cortical activation, and the fraction of ripple events relative to cortical activity onset.

Source Data Fig. 7

The balanced accuracy for different pattern pairs and their associated P values for mouse 2. The preference index values for A–P and E–L pairs. The balanced accuracy for A–P and E–L pairs.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

The reconstruction error between random init and refined init of TCA model.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 8

The balanced accuracy for different pattern pairs and their associated P values for all six mice.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 9

Number of decodable pairs using PYR + INT, PYR and INT neurons.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 10

The balanced accuracy for different pattern pairs and their associated P values for mouse 2, considering all ripple events. The preference index values for A–P and E–L pairs. The balanced accuracy for A–P and E–L pairs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, X., Ren, C., Lu, Y. et al. Multimodal neural recordings with Neuro-FITM uncover diverse patterns of cortical–hippocampal interactions. Nat Neurosci (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00841-5

Download citation

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing