Abstract
Planning motor actions can improve behavioral performance; however, it can also lead to premature actions. Although the anterior lateral motor cortex (ALM) is known to be important for correct motor planning, it is currently unknown how it contributes to premature impulsive motor output. This was addressed using whole-cell voltage recordings from layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons within the ALM while mice performed a cued sensory association task. Here, a robust voltage response was evoked during the auditory cue, which was greater during incorrect premature behavior than during correct performance in the task. Optogenetically suppressing ALM during the cued sensory association task led to enhanced behavior, with fewer, and more delayed, premature responses and faster correct responses. Taken together, our findings extend the current known roles of the ALM, illustrating that ALM plays an important role in impulsive behavior by encoding and influencing premature motor output.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
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
Data availability
Data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information files. Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
Source code for acquisition and analysis of voltage recordings is available by request.
References
Bruce, C. J. & Goldberg, M. E. Primate frontal eye fields. I. Single neurons discharging before saccades. J. Neurophysiol. 53, 603–635 (1985).
Chen, T. W., Li, N., Daie, K. & Svoboda, K. A map of anticipatory activity in mouse motor cortex. Neuron 94, 866–879 e4 (2017).
Guo, Z. V. et al. Flow of cortical activity underlying a tactile decision in mice. Neuron 81, 179–194 (2014).
Inagaki, H. K., Fontolan, L., Romani, S. & Svoboda, K. Discrete attractor dynamics underlies persistent activity in the frontal cortex. Nature 566, 212–217 (2019).
Li, N., Guo, Z. V., Chen, T. W. & Svoboda, K. in Micro-, Meso- and Macro-Dynamics of the Brain (eds Buzsaki, G. & Christen, Y.) (Springer, Cham (CH), 2016).
Gao, Z. et al. A cortico-cerebellar loop for motor planning. Nature 563, 113–116 (2018).
Gilad, A., Gallero-Salas, Y., Groos, D. & Helmchen, F. Behavioral strategy determines frontal or posterior location of short-term memory in neocortex. Neuron 99, 814–828.e7 (2018).
Maimon, G. & Assad, J. A. A cognitive signal for the proactive timing of action in macaque LIP. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 948–955 (2006).
Nobre, A. C. & van Ede, F. Anticipated moments: temporal structure in attention. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 34–48 (2018).
Svoboda, K. & Li, N. Neural mechanisms of movement planning: motor cortex and beyond. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 49, 33–41 (2018).
Coddington, L. T. & Dudman, J. T. The timing of action determines reward prediction signals in identified midbrain dopamine neurons. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1563–1573 (2018).
Dalley, J. W., Everitt, B. J. & Robbins, T. W. Impulsivity, compulsivity, and top-down cognitive control. Neuron 69, 680–694 (2011).
Lee, K. et al. Temporally restricted dopaminergic control of reward-conditioned movements. Nat. Neurosci. 23, 209–216 (2020).
Otis, J. M. et al. Prefrontal cortex output circuits guide reward seeking through divergent cue encoding. Nature 543, 103–107 (2017).
Kim, S. & Lee, D. Prefrontal cortex and impulsive decision making. Biol. Psychiatry 69, 1140–1146 (2011).
Dalley, J. W. & Ersche, K. D. Neural circuitry and mechanisms of waiting impulsivity: relevance to addiction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20180145 (2019).
Dalley, J. W. & Roiser, J. P. Dopamine, serotonin and impulsivity. Neuroscience 215, 42–58 (2012).
Catanese, J. & Jaeger, D. Premotor ramping of thalamic neuronal activity is modulated by nigral inputs and contributes to control the timing of action release. J. Neurosci. 41, 1878–1891 (2021).
Li, B., Nguyen, T. P., Ma, C. & Dan, Y. Inhibition of impulsive action by projection-defined prefrontal pyramidal neurons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 17278–17287 (2020).
Ebbesen, C. L. et al. More than just a ‘motor’: recent surprises from the frontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 38, 9402–9413 (2018).
Miri, A. et al. Behaviorally selective engagement of short-latency effector pathways by motor cortex. Neuron 95, 683–696 e11 (2017).
Galinanes, G. L., Bonardi, C. & Huber, D. Directional reaching for water as a cortex-dependent behavioral framework for mice. Cell Rep. 22, 2767–2783 (2018).
Li, N., Chen, T. W., Guo, Z. V., Gerfen, C. R. & Svoboda, K. A motor cortex circuit for motor planning and movement. Nature 519, 51–56 (2015).
Bradley, M. M., Miccoli, L., Escrig, M. A. & Lang, P. J. The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. Psychophysiology 45, 602–607 (2008).
Reimer, J. et al. Pupil fluctuations track fast switching of cortical states during quiet wakefulness. Neuron 84, 355–362 (2014).
Bollu, T. et al. Cortex-dependent corrections as the tongue reaches for and misses targets. Nature 594, 82–87 (2021).
Banerjee, A. & Long, M. A. Ready, steady, go! Imaging cortical activity during movement planning and execution. Neuron 94, 698–700 (2017).
Fiser, A. et al. Experience-dependent spatial expectations in mouse visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1658–1664 (2016).
Gavornik, J. P. & Bear, M. F. Learned spatiotemporal sequence recognition and prediction in primary visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 732–737 (2014).
Jaramillo, S. & Zador, A. M. The auditory cortex mediates the perceptual effects of acoustic temporal expectation. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 246–251 (2011).
Lin, P.-A., Asinof, S. K., Edwards, N. J. & Isaacson, J. S. Arousal regulates frequency tuning in primary auditory cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 25304–25310 (2019).
McGinley, M. J., David, S. V. & McCormick, D. A. Cortical membrane potential signature of optimal states for sensory signal detection. Neuron 87, 179–192 (2015).
Churchland, M. M., Yu, B. M., Ryu, S. I., Santhanam, G. & Shenoy, K. V. Neural variability in premotor cortex provides a signature of motor preparation. J. Neurosci. 26, 3697–3712 (2006).
Komiyama, T. et al. Learning-related fine-scale specificity imaged in motor cortex circuits of behaving mice. Nature 464, 1182–1186 (2010).
Funahashi, S., Bruce, C. J. & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. Mnemonic coding of visual space in the monkey’s dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 61, 331–349 (1989).
Riehle, A. & Requin, J. Monkey primary motor and premotor cortex: single-cell activity related to prior information about direction and extent of an intended movement. J. Neurophysiol. 61, 534–549 (1989).
Schultz, W., Apicella, P. & Ljungberg, T. Responses of monkey dopamine neurons to reward and conditioned stimuli during successive steps of learning a delayed response task. J. Neurosci. 13, 900–913 (1993).
Mirenowicz, J. & Schultz, W. Preferential activation of midbrain dopamine neurons by appetitive rather than aversive stimuli. Nature 379, 449–451 (1996).
Mininni, C. J., Caiafa, C. F., Zanutto, B. S., Tseng, K. Y. & Lew, S. E. Putative dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area enhance information coding in the prefrontal cortex. Sci. Rep. 8, 11740 (2018).
Perez-Lopez, J. L., Contreras-Lopez, R., Ramirez-Jarquin, J. O. & Tecuapetla, F. Direct glutamatergic signaling from midbrain dopaminergic neurons onto pyramidal prefrontal cortex neurons. Front. Neural Circuits 12, 70 (2018).
Schultz, W., Dayan, P. & Montague, P. R. A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science 275, 1593–1599 (1997).
Miller, E. K. The prefrontal cortex and cognitive control. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 1, 59–65 (2000).
Takahashi, N. et al. Thalamic input to motor cortex facilitates goal-directed action initiation. Curr. Biol. 31, 4148–4155 e4 (2021).
Stringer, C. et al. Spontaneous behaviors drive multidimensional, brainwide activity. Science 364, 255 (2019).
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).
Quiquempoix, M. et al. Layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons control the gain of cortical output. Cell Rep. 24, 2799–2807 e4 (2018).
Scott, D. J. et al. A novel ultra-stable, monomeric green fluorescent protein for direct volumetric imaging of whole organs using CLARITY. Sci. Rep. 8, 667 (2018).
Bergmann, R. et al. Coordination between eye movement and whisking in head-fixed mice navigating a plus maze. eNeuro https://doi.org/ENEURO.0089-22.2022 (2022).
Acknowledgements
We thank D. Scott for providing the AAV1/2-muGFP and V. Bahr, J. Kremkow and R. Sachdev for custom software for measuring online pupil diameter. This work was supported by the NHMRC (grant nos. APP1086082 and APP1063533, L.M.P.), the Sylvia and Charles Viertel Charitable Foundation (L.M.P.), the Australian Research Council (grant no. DP160103047, L.M.P.), IBRO (Return Home Fellowship and Early Career Award, R.G.) and an MJJ (Marius Jakulis Jason) fellowship (R.G.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.G. and L.M.P. conceptualized and designed the study. R.G. performed and analyzed all experiments. L.G. performed control opto-inactivation experiments. R.G. and L.M.P. interpreted the results and wrote the paper.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Neuroscience thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Performance in tactile association task.
(a) The tactile-association task design. Mice were trained to lick a water port within 1 s of a tactile stimulation delivered to the forepaw (200 Hz, 100 ms). Correct responses (HIT) were rewarded with sucrose water (5–10 µl, 10% sucrose). Go-trials (tactile stimulus) were randomly interleaved with Catch-trials (no tactile stimulus). (b) Rate of HIT (green) and false alarm (FA; fawn) trials throughout learning of the tactile-asociation task (n = 32 mice). Data presented from individual mice (lines) and as mean (circles). (c) Discriminability index (d’) throughout learning (n = 32 mice). Data presented as individual mice (lines) and mean (circles).
Extended Data Fig. 2 Improvement in performance during the cued sensory association task following the introduction of an auditory cue.
(a) HIT (correct), (b) False-alarm (FA), (c) Discriminability index (d’), and (d) Early-lick (EL) rate in the first and last day after introducing the auditory cue during the cued-sensory association task (HIT, P < 0.0001; FA, P < 0.0001; d’, P < 0.0001; EL, P = 0.82; two tailed Wilcoxon tests, n = 32 mice). ns, P > 0.05; ****, P < 0.0001.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Performance in the cued-sensory association task during cue omission.
(a) The cued sensory association task design. Mice were trained to lick a water port within 1 s of a tactile stimulation (200 Hz, 100 ms). Tactile stimulus was presented either in isolation (non-cued trials; TAC) or preceded by an auditory cue (cued trials; CueTAC; 1 s, 7 kHz, 60 dB). Trials were randomly interleaved. (b) Rate of HIT during CueTAC and TAC trials (P = 0.69, two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 6 mice). Data presented as individual mice (lines) and mean of all mice (bars). (c) The average onset of the licking response during CueTAC and TAC trials (P = 0.03, two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 6 mice). Data presented as individual mice (lines) and mean of all mice (bars). ns, P > 0.05; *, p < 0.05.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Performance in the cued sensory association task during variable cue duration.
(a) The cued sensory association task design. Mice were trained to lick a water port within 1 s of a tactile stimulation (200 Hz, 100 ms). Tactile stimulus was preceded with an auditory cue (7 kHz, 60 dB) with variable duration (0.75 s, 1 s and 1.25 s). (b) Rate of EL performance during trials with different cue duration (1 s versus 0.75 s, P = 0.03; 1 s versus 1.25 s, P = 0.03; two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 6 mice). (c) The average onset of the EL licking response during trials with different cue duration (1 s versus 0.75 s, P = 0.03; 1 s versus 1.25 s, P = 0.03; two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 6 mice). (d) Rate of HIT performance during trials with different cue duration (1 s versus 0.75 s, P = 0.25; 1 s versus 1.25 s, P = 0.63; two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 6 mice). (e) The average onset of the HIT licking response during trials with different cue duration (1 s versus 0.75 s, P = 0.99; 1 s versus 1.25 s, P = 0.84; two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 6 mice). Data presented from individual mice (lines) and as mean (bars). ns, P > 0.05; *, P < 0.05.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Performance in the cued sensory association task during omission of the tactile stimulus.
(a) The cued sensory association task design. Mice were initially trained to lick a water port in response to tactile stimulation (200 Hz, 100 ms) which was preceded by an auditory cue (1 s, 7 kHz, 60 dB; CueTAC). Then, in a subset of randomly interleaved trials, the tactile stimulus was omitted and only the auditory cue was presented to the mouse (Cue). Therefore, mice were presented with either the cue with (CueTAC) or without (Cue) the tactile stimulus. (b) HIT rate and (c) average onset of the licking response during CueTAC and Cue trials (HIT rate, P = 0.03; HIT Onset, P = 0.03; two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 6 mice). Data presented as individual mice (lines) and mean of all mice (bars). *, P < 0.05.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Voltage response during correct HIT performance in the cued sensory association task and its relation to timing of the licking response.
(a) Overlay of individual voltage responses during HIT trials (grey) and average of all HIT trials (black) in an example L2/3 pyramidal neuron. (b) Overlay of the average voltage responses during HIT trials of individual (grey) and average of all (black) L2/3 pyramidal neurons (n = 11 neurons, 4 mice) during HIT performance (light green) and its average (dark green). (c) Average voltage response (top) and licking response (bottom) during all HIT trials in the example L2/3 pyramidal neuron shown in (a). (d) Onset of the voltage occured before the first lick in HIT trials (P = 0.004, two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 9 neurons, 4 mice). **, P < 0.01.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Voltage responses in ALM neurons during the auditory cue.
(a) Overlay of the grand average (dark) and sem (light) voltage response for all recorded neurons during HIT (green) and MISS (grey) trials. Insert, zoom of voltage during the auditory cue. Auditory cue separated into 1st (0–500 ms) and 2nd (500–1000 ms) portion. (b) Amplitude of the voltage response in HIT trials during the 1st and 2nd portion of the auditory cue compared to baseline (baseline versus 1st portion of the cue, P = 0.0001; baseline versus 2nd portion of the cue, P = 0.0002; two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 14 neurons, 4 mice). (c) Amplitude of the voltage response in MISS trials during the 1st and 2nd portion of the auditory cue compared to baseline (baseline versus 1st portion of the cue, P = 0.03; baseline versus 2nd portion of the cue, P = 0.44; two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 6 neurons, 4 mice). ns, P > 0.05; *, P < 0.05; ***, P < 0.001.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Nuchal EMG activity during HIT and early-lick trials.
(a) Example EMG activity during HIT (top) and early-lick (bottom; EL) trials. (b) Grand average (dark) and sem (light) EMG activity during HIT (green) and early-lick (red) trials from example in (a). (c) Average EMG activity during the beginning of the cue prior to licking responses (0–0.3 s) in HIT and early-lick trials (P = 0.47, two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 7 sessions, 3 mice). ns, P > 0.05.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Ramping baseline during early-lick trials.
(a) Example voltage responses recorded from a layer 2/3 pyramidal neuron within ALM during early-lick (EL) and correct (HIT) trials. Average baseline voltage at the start (0–1.5 s) and end (1.5–2 s) of the baseline epoch during (b) early-lick trials (P = 0.02, two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 11 neurons, 4 mice) and (c) HIT trials (P = 0.32, two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 11 neurons, 4 mice). ns, P > 0.05; *, P < 0.05.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Firing rates of ALM pyramidal neurons during and after photo-activation of PV interneurons.
(a) Experimental design. PV+ Cre transgenic mice were previously injected with the light sensitive opsin ChR2 (pAAV-EF1a-doublefloxed-hChR2(H134R)-EYFP-WPRE-HGHpA) into the ALM (AP 2.5, ML 1.5 from Bregma). After 2 weeks expression, whole-cell patch-clamp recordings were performed in pyramidal neurons within the ALM during photo-activation of PV interneurons by blue LED pulses (470 nm, 40 Hz, 10 ms, 2–5 mW) delivered to the cortical surface. (b) Average (black) and sem (grey) firing rate during ChR2 activation for all recorded ALM neurons (n = 21 neurons, 5 mice). (c) Firing rate of ALM pyramidal neurons before, during and after photoactivation of PV interneurons (P = 0.29, two tailed Wilcoxon test, n = 21 neurons, 5 mice). ns, P > 0.05.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1–3.
Supplementary Data
Supplementary Data 1. Data of Supplementary Figs. 2 and 3.
Source data
Source Data Fig. 1
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 2
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 3
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 4
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 5
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 6
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 7
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 8
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 9
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 10
Statistical source data.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Guzulaitis, R., Godenzini, L. & Palmer, L.M. Neural basis of anticipation and premature impulsive action in the frontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 25, 1683–1692 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01198-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01198-z