Abstract
The ability to shift between repetitive and goal-directed actions is a hallmark of cognitive control. Previous studies have reported that adaptive shifts in behavior are accompanied by changes of neural activity in frontal cortex. However, neural and behavioral adaptations can occur at multiple time scales, and their relationship remains poorly defined. Here we developed an adaptive sensorimotor decision-making task for head-fixed mice, requiring them to shift flexibly between multiple auditory–motor mappings. Two-photon calcium imaging of secondary motor cortex (M2) revealed different ensemble activity states for each mapping. When adapting to a conditional mapping, transitions in ensemble activity were abrupt and occurred before the recovery of behavioral performance. By contrast, gradual and delayed transitions accompanied shifts toward repetitive responding. These results demonstrate distinct ensemble signatures associated with the start versus end of sensory-guided behavior and suggest that M2 leads in engaging goal-directed response strategies that require sensorimotor associations.
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
Griffiths, K.R., Morris, R.W. & Balleine, B.W. Translational studies of goal-directed action as a framework for classifying deficits across psychiatric disorders. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 8, 101 (2014).
Asaad, W.F., Rainer, G. & Miller, E.K. Task-specific neural activity in the primate prefrontal cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 84, 451–459 (2000).
Rich, E.L. & Shapiro, M. Rat prefrontal cortical neurons selectively code strategy switches. J. Neurosci. 29, 7208–7219 (2009).
Rodgers, C.C. & DeWeese, M.R. Neural correlates of task switching in prefrontal cortex and primary auditory cortex in a novel stimulus selection task for rodents. Neuron 82, 1157–1170 (2014).
Mitz, A.R., Godschalk, M. & Wise, S.P. Learning-dependent neuronal activity in the premotor cortex: activity during the acquisition of conditional motor associations. J. Neurosci. 11, 1855–1872 (1991).
Chen, L.L. & Wise, S.P. Neuronal activity in the supplementary eye field during acquisition of conditional oculomotor associations. J. Neurophysiol. 73, 1101–1121 (1995).
Pasupathy, A. & Miller, E.K. Different time courses of learning-related activity in the prefrontal cortex and striatum. Nature 433, 873–876 (2005).
Antzoulatos, E.G. & Miller, E.K. Differences between neural activity in prefrontal cortex and striatum during learning of novel abstract categories. Neuron 71, 243–249 (2011).
Mante, V., Sussillo, D., Shenoy, K.V. & Newsome, W.T. Context-dependent computation by recurrent dynamics in prefrontal cortex. Nature 503, 78–84 (2013).
Stokes, M.G. et al. Dynamic coding for cognitive control in prefrontal cortex. Neuron 78, 364–375 (2013).
Wilson, R.C., Takahashi, Y.K., Schoenbaum, G. & Niv, Y. Orbitofrontal cortex as a cognitive map of task space. Neuron 81, 267–279 (2014).
Durstewitz, D., Vittoz, N.M., Floresco, S.B. & Seamans, J.K. Abrupt transitions between prefrontal neural ensemble states accompany behavioral transitions during rule learning. Neuron 66, 438–448 (2010).
Karlsson, M.P., Tervo, D.G.R. & Karpova, A.Y. Network resets in medial prefrontal cortex mark the onset of behavioral uncertainty. Science 338, 135–139 (2012).
Bunge, S.A. et al. Neural circuitry underlying rule use in humans and nonhuman primates. J. Neurosci. 25, 10347–10350 (2005).
White, I.M. & Wise, S.P. Rule-dependent neuronal activity in the prefrontal cortex. Exp. Brain Res. 126, 315–335 (1999).
Wise, S.P. & Murray, E.A. Arbitrary associations between antecedents and actions. Trends Neurosci. 23, 271–276 (2000).
Petrides, M. Deficits on conditional associative-learning tasks after frontal- and temporal-lobe lesions in man. Neuropsychologia 23, 601–614 (1985).
Halsband, U. & Passingham, R.E. Premotor cortex and the conditions for movement in monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Behav. Brain Res. 18, 269–277 (1985).
Nixon, P.D., McDonald, K.R., Gough, P.M., Alexander, I.H. & Passingham, R.E. Cortico-basal ganglia pathways are essential for the recall of well-established visuomotor associations. Eur. J. Neurosci. 20, 3165–3178 (2004).
Toni, I., Ramnani, N., Josephs, O., Ashburner, J. & Passingham, R.E. Learning arbitrary visuomotor associations: temporal dynamic of brain activity. Neuroimage 14, 1048–1057 (2001).
Boettiger, C.A. & D'Esposito, M. Frontal networks for learning and executing arbitrary stimulus-response associations. J. Neurosci. 25, 2723–2732 (2005).
Rushworth, M.F.S., Hadland, K.A., Paus, T. & Sipila, P.K. Role of the human medial frontal cortex in task switching: a combined fMRI and TMS study. J. Neurophysiol. 87, 2577–2592 (2002).
Murray, E.A., Bussey, T.J. & Wise, S.P. Role of prefrontal cortex in a network for arbitrary visuomotor mapping. Exp. Brain Res. 133, 114–129 (2000).
Preuss, T.M. Do rats have prefrontal cortex? The Rose-Woolsey-Akert program reconsidered. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 7, 1–24 (1995).
Nachev, P., Kennard, C. & Husain, M. Functional role of the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas. Nat Rev. Neurosci. 9, 856–869 (2008).
Schall, J.D., Stuphorn, V. & Brown, J.W. Monitoring and control of action by the frontal lobes. Neuron 36, 309–322 (2002).
Isoda, M. & Hikosaka, O. Switching from automatic to controlled action by monkey medial frontal cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 240–248 (2007).
Gremel, C.M. & Costa, R.M. Premotor cortex is critical for goal-directed actions. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 7, 110 (2013).
Sul, J.H., Jo, S., Lee, D. & Jung, M.W. Role of rodent secondary motor cortex in value-based action selection. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 1202–1208 (2011).
Erlich, J.C., Bialek, M. & Brody, C.D. A cortical substrate for memory-guided orienting in the rat. Neuron 72, 330–343 (2011).
Murakami, M., Vicente, M.I., Costa, G.M. & Mainen, Z.F. Neural antecedents of self-initiated actions in secondary motor cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1574–1582 (2014).
Passingham, R.E., Myers, C., Rawlins, N., Lightfoot, V. & Fearn, S. Premotor cortex in the rat. Behav. Neurosci. 102, 101–109 (1988).
Fusi, S., Asaad, W.F., Miller, E.K. & Wang, X.-J. A neural circuit model of flexible sensorimotor mapping: learning and forgetting on multiple timescales. Neuron 54, 319–333 (2007).
Chen, T.-W. et al. Ultrasensitive fluorescent proteins for imaging neuronal activity. Nature 499, 295–300 (2013).
Machens, C.K., Romo, R. & Brody, C.D. Functional, but not anatomical, separation of “what” and “when” in prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 30, 350–360 (2010).
Brendel, W., Romo, R. & Machens, C.K. Demixed principal component analysis. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24 (eds. Shawe-Taylor J., Zemel, R.S., Bartlett, P.L., Pereira, F. & Weinberger, K.Q.) http://papers.nips.cc/paper/4215-demixed-principal-component-analysis (2011).
Guo, Z.V. et al. Flow of cortical activity underlying a tactile decision in mice. Neuron 81, 179–194 (2014).
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).
Duan, C.A., Erlich, J.C. & Brody, C.D. Requirement of prefrontal and midbrain regions for rapid executive control of behavior in the rat. Neuron 86, 1491–1503 (2015).
Asaad, W.F., Rainer, G. & Miller, E.K. Neural activity in the primate prefrontal cortex during associative learning. Neuron 21, 1399–1407 (1998).
Darrah, J.M., Stefani, M.R. & Moghaddam, B. Interaction of N-methyl-D-aspartate and group 5 metabotropic glutamate receptors on behavioral flexibility using a novel operant set-shift paradigm. Behav. Pharmacol. 19, 225–234 (2008).
Znamenskiy, P. & Zador, A.M. Corticostriatal neurons in auditory cortex drive decisions during auditory discrimination. Nature 497, 482–485 (2013).
Brasted, P.J. & Wise, S.P. Comparison of learning-related neuronal activity in the dorsal premotor cortex and striatum. Eur. J. Neurosci. 19, 721–740 (2004).
Wallis, J.D., Anderson, K.C. & Miller, E.K. Single neurons in prefrontal cortex encode abstract rules. Nature 411, 953–956 (2001).
Wills, T.J., Lever, C., Cacucci, F., Burgess, N. & O'Keefe, J. Attractor dynamics in the hippocampal representation of the local environment. Science 308, 873–876 (2005).
Leutgeb, S. et al. Independent codes for spatial and episodic memory in hippocampal neuronal ensembles. Science 309, 619–623 (2005).
Hyman, J.M., Ma, L., Balaguer-Ballester, E., Durstewitz, D. & Seamans, J.K. Contextual encoding by ensembles of medial prefrontal cortex neurons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5086–5091 (2012).
Schneider, D.M., Nelson, A. & Mooney, R. A synaptic and circuit basis for corollary discharge in the auditory cortex. Nature 513, 189–194 (2014).
Manita, S. et al. A top-down cortical circuit for accurate sensory perception. Neuron 86, 1304–1316 (2015).
Rothwell, P.E. et al. Input- and output-specific regulation of serial order performance by corticostriatal circuits. Neuron 88, 345–356 (2015).
Pologruto, T.A., Sabatini, B.L. & Svoboda, K. ScanImage: flexible software for operating laser scanning microscopes. Biomed. Eng. Online 2, 13 (2003).
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).
Acknowledgements
We thank D. Lee, M. Picciotto, and J. Taylor for discussions, and C. Posner and R. Hannibal for assistance with behavioral training. This work was supported by National Institute of Aging center grant P50AG047270 (A.C.K.), National Institute of Mental Health grant R21MH110712 (A.C.K.), NARSAD Young Investigator Award (A.C.K.), National Institutes of Health training grant T32NS041228 (M.J.S.), National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship DGE-1122492 (M.J.S.), and a Brown-Coxe Postdoctoral Fellowship (F.A.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.J.S. and A.C.K. conceived the project. M.J.S. performed all experiments. V.P. assisted with mouse surgery and inactivation experiments. F.A. and M.L. assisted with behavioral training and histology. M.J.S. and A.C.K. analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Integrated supplementary information
Supplementary Figure 1 Summary of behavioral performances for mice in imaging experiments.
(a) Task performance for mice during M2 imaging experiments. Open triangles, individual experiments. Filled triangles, mean±s.e.m. n = 9 sessions from 5 mice. (b) Same as (a) for ALM imaging experiments. n = 8 sessions from 4 mice. (c) Same as (a) for V1 imaging experiments. n = 4 sessions from 2 mice.
Supplementary Figure 2 Slower first lick times for trials that were incongruent with the stimulus–response contingencies of the prior block.
(a) The difference in mean first lick times (see Methods for definition) between left and right responses for perseverative hit trials during sound block. Open triangle, individual experiment. Filled triangle, mean±s.e.m. This plot shows that a mouse could respond faster to either left or right lick port. The differences could be due to a combination of factors including placement of the lick ports and the internal bias of the animal. (b) Schematic illustrating perseverative hit, other hit, and perseverative error trials. (c) Based on the analysis in (a), either left or right is denoted as the fast direction. The mean first lick times for the fast direction are plotted for perseverative hit (pHit), other hit (oHit), and perseverative error (pErr) trials occurring during pre-switch (20 trials before block switch) or post-switch (20 trials after block switch) condition. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess differences between pHit trials and oHit or pErr trials in the same block type. We also tested sound versus action blocks, and found no significant differences for any comparisons of the same trial types (p>0.05, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Line, individual experiments. Filled triangles, mean±s.e.m (d) Same as (c) except reporting the average of mean first lick time for the fast and slow directions for each experiment. There were no significant differences for any comparisons of the same trial types between sound and action blocks (p>0.05, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). (e) Same as Fig. 1e, except using only the 20 trials pre-switch. (f) Same as Fig. 1e, except using only the 20 trials post-switch. n = 9 sessions from 5 mice.
Supplementary Figure 3 Video tracking of whisker and hindpaw positions during the adaptive decision-making task.
(a) Still frame from a video taken using an infrared webcam. One whisker on each side of the face was painted using a phosphorescent paint marker (cat. #222-C-GO, Marvy Uchida). Whiskers were illuminated by two infrared light-emitting diodes (IR-LED). A third IR-LED was programmed to turn on 1 s before auditory cues, so the video could be synchronized to the task events. When the room light was turned off, the reflected infrared light could be visualized by the webcam. (b) Mean position of the left and right whiskers for different trial conditions for subject M12. These traces were averaged across pre-switch, correct trials. For this analysis, each whisker was converted to a binary mask based on pixel intensity. The centroid of the mask was located in each frame, and then a line was fitted between the centroid and a fixed point on the face. The angle between the fitted line and the horizontal axis is reported, with positive deflections being protractions and negative deflections being retractions of the whisker. (c) Same as (b) for another subject, M13. (d) Still frame from a video showing a painted hind paw. The webcam was positioned under the animal, to record footage through the acrylic tube. The synchronization IR-LED is visible. (e) Mean x- and y- positions of the right hindpaw for different trial conditions for subject M12. Hindpaw and whisker data were obtained from two different behavioral sessions.
Supplementary Figure 4 Approximating the spread of muscimol during inactivation experiments by injecting low-molecular-weight fluorescein.
Fluorescein (disodium salt, MW=412; #S25328, Fisher Scientific) was injected bilaterally into M2, at the same concentration and volume used for muscimol (5 mM, 46 nL per hemisphere). Animal was euthanized at about the time when behavioral testing would have occurred (1 hr after injections) via transcardial perfusion, and the brain was immediately sectioned with a vibratome. Using a wide-field fluorescence microscope, five images were taken for each brain slice and then stitched together to generate the figures. The image series was fitted to wireframes from the Paxinos and Franklin mouse atlas. These results showed a spread of ~1 mm along the anterior-posterior axis. The fluorescein dye was largely restricted to M2 and Cg1.
Supplementary Figure 5 Bilateral inactivation of M2 has no effect on mean lick rate or first lick response time.
(a) Same analysis as Fig. 1e using data from saline- (black, red, blue) and muscimol-injected (overlaid in green) mice. Lick rates in each rule-sensory-motor combination were compared between saline and muscimol conditions for each 0.1 s bin, and the bars at the top of the panels denote significant differences (p<0.01, t-test; only 4 bins had significant difference by this measure, and none were consecutive bins). Line, mean. Shading, ±s.e.m. (b) Same analysis as Supplementary Fig. 2c, using data from the saline- (black, red) and muscimol-injected (green) mice. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess differences between saline and muscimol conditions. n = 11 mice.
Supplementary Figure 6 Relationship between task parameters and neural/behavioral transitions.
(a) Ensemble transition trials plotted against the behavioral transition trial from the same block (see Methods for definition of transition trials). Each point represents one block switch. Bold circle, median value. Left panel: n = 33 switches to a sound block from 9 sessions from 5 mice. Right panel: n = 35 switches to a spatial block from 9 sessions from 5 mice. Symbols denote the different experimental sessions. (b) Same as (a), except symbols denote the subjects tested. (c) Same as (a), except symbol sizes denote the number of other errors in the block. (d) Same as (a), except symbol sizes denote the number of perseverative errors in the block.
Supplementary Figure 7 Strategy-specific differences in decoding accuracy and neural trajectory separation are not due to differences in trial conditions.
(a, c) Same analysis as performed for Fig. 5d except using only the subset of trials with matched trial conditions. (b, d) Same analysis as performed for Fig. 5e except using only the subset of trials with matched trial conditions. (e, f) Same analysis as performed for Fig. 6b except using only the subset of trials with matched trial conditions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test for significance, and the p-values are noted in the figure. n = 9 sessions from 5 mice.
Supplementary Figure 8 Choice selectivity for neurons in M2, ALM and V1.
(a) Selectivity for current choice was quantified by calculating the normalized ΔF/F difference during pre-switch, sound-guided trials. Each row represents an M2 neuron. Only M2 neurons that were significant for current choice, C(n), at t = 3 s from response are plotted. Cells are sorted by their choice selectivity. n = 9 sessions from 5 mice. (b) Same as (a) for ALM. n = 8 sessions from 4 mice. (c) Same as (a) for V1. Neurons that were significant for current choice, C(n), at t = 1 s from response are plotted. n = 4 sessions from 2 mice.
Supplementary Figure 9 Summary of behavioral and neural results.
A summary of the task, behavioral performance, and neural dynamics. Recovery of behavioral performance following a switch was approximated as an exponential function for this schematic. The plots were generated based on the median values of behavioral transition trial (sound: 19.0, action: 17.5; dotted lines), neural transition trial (sound: 5.1, action: 14.6), midpoint trial (sound: 4.0, action: 10.4), steepness (sound: 1.02, action: 0.35), and range (sound: 0.36, action: 0.38).
Supplementary information
Supplementary Text and Figures
Supplementary Figures 1–9 and Supplementary Table 1 (PDF 2043 kb)
Supplementary Methods Checklist
xx (PDF 471 kb)
Supplementary Video 1
A mouse performing sound-guided trials from the adaptive decision-making task. Video and audio were captured using an infrared webcam. (MP4 23534 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Siniscalchi, M., Phoumthipphavong, V., Ali, F. et al. Fast and slow transitions in frontal ensemble activity during flexible sensorimotor behavior. Nat Neurosci 19, 1234–1242 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4342
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4342
This article is cited by
-
Functional alterations of the prefrontal circuit underlying cognitive aging in mice
Nature Communications (2023)
-
The rat frontal orienting field dynamically encodes value for economic decisions under risk
Nature Neuroscience (2023)
-
A reservoir of foraging decision variables in the mouse brain
Nature Neuroscience (2023)
-
Emergence of cortical network motifs for short-term memory during learning
Nature Communications (2023)
-
An adaptive behavioral control motif mediated by cortical axo-axonic inhibition
Nature Neuroscience (2023)