4.8 Article

Locomotion and Task Demands Differentially Modulate Thalamic Audiovisual Processing during Active Search

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 14, 页码 1885-1891

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.045

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [DMS-1042134]
  2. NIH [R21DC012894, P30DC05209, R01DC009477]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Active search is a ubiquitous goal-driven behavior wherein organisms purposefully investigate the sensory environment to locate a target object. During active search, brain circuits analyze a stream of sensory information from the external environment, adjusting for internal signals related to self-generated movement or top-down weighting of anticipated target and distractor properties. Sensory responses in the cortex can be modulated by internal state [1-9], though the extent and form of modulation arising in the cortex de novo versus an inheritance from subcortical stations is not clear [4, 8-12]. We addressed this question by simultaneously recording from auditory and visual regions of the thalamus (MG and LG, respectively) while mice used dynamic auditory or visual feedback to search for a hidden target within an annular track. Locomotion was associated with strongly suppressed responses and reduced decoding accuracy in MG but a subtle increase in LG spiking. Because stimuli in one modality provided critical information about target location while the other served as a distractor, we could also estimate the importance of task relevance in both thalamic subdivisions. In contrast to the effects of locomotion, we found that LG responses were reduced overall yet decoded stimuli more accurately when vision was behaviorally relevant, whereas task relevance had little effect on MG responses. This double dissociation between the influences of task relevance and movement in MG and LG highlights a role for extrasensory modulation in the thalamus but also suggests key differences in the organization of modulatory circuitry between the auditory and visual pathways.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据