4.7 Article

Spike Timing, Spike Count, and Temporal Information for the Discrimination of Tactile Stimuli in the Rat Ventrobasal Complex

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 29, Issue 18, Pages 5964-5973

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4416-08.2009

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria del Instituto de Salud Carlos III del Ministerio de Sanidad [CP05/00311 PI05/2322]
  2. ConsejerIa de Educacion y Ciencia de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha [PAI06]
  3. Fundacion para la Investigacion Sanitaria en Castilla-La Mancha (Spain)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this work was to investigate the role of spike timing for the discrimination of tactile stimuli in the thalamic ventrobasal complex of the rat. We applied information-theoretic measures and computational experiments on neurophysiological data to test the ability of single-neuron responses to discriminate stimulus location and stimulus dynamics using either spike count (40 ms bin size) or spike timing (1 ms bin size). Our main finding is not only that spike timing provides additional information over spike count alone, but specifically that the temporal aspects of the code can be more informative than spike count in the rat ventrobasal complex. Virtually all temporal information-i.e., information exclusively related to when the spikes occur-is conveyed by first spikes, arising mostly from latency differences between the responses to different stimuli. Although the imprecision of first spikes (i.e., the jitter) is highly detrimental for the information conveyed by latency differences, jitter differences can contribute to temporal information, but only if latency differences are close to zero. We conclude that temporal information conveyed by spike timing can be higher than spike count information for the discrimination of somatosensory stimuli in the rat ventrobasal complex.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available