4.8 Article

Cerebellar Neurodynamics Predict Decision Timing and Outcome on the Single-Trial Level

Journal

CELL
Volume 180, Issue 3, Pages 536-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.12.018

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Leon Levy Fellowship
  2. Kavli Fellowship
  3. US National Science Foundation (NSF) [DBI-1707408, PHY-1748958]
  4. Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via Department of Interior/Interior Business Center (DoI/IBC) [D16PC00002]
  5. NIH [R25GM067110, 5U01NS103488, 1RF1 NS113251, 1RF1NS110501, DP1HD094764, R01NS049319, U19NS104653, R43OD024879, R24NS086601, 2R44OD024879]
  6. Kavli Foundation
  7. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation [2919.01]
  8. Simons Foundation [SCGB 542973]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Goal-directed behavior requires the interaction of multiple brain regions. How these regions and their interactions with brain-wide activity drive action selection is less understood. We have investigated this question by combining whole-brain volumetric calcium imaging using light-field microscopy and an operant-conditioning task in larval zebrafish. We find global, recurring dynamics of brain states to exhibit pre-motor bifurcations toward mutually exclusive decision outcomes. These dynamics arise from a distributed network displaying trial-by-trial functional connectivity changes, especially between cerebellum and habenula, which correlate with decision outcome. Within this network the cerebellum shows particularly strong and predictive pre-motor activity (>10 s before movement initiation), mainly within the granule cells. Turn directions are determined by the difference neuroactivity between the ipsilateral and contralateral hemispheres, while the rate of bi-hemispheric population ramping quantitatively predicts decision time on the trial-by-trial level. Our results highlight a cognitive role of the cerebellum and its importance in motor planning.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available