4.7 Article

Single-neuron stability during repeated reaching in macaque premotor cortex

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 27, 期 40, 页码 10742-10750

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0959-07.2007

关键词

premotor; arm; macaque; multielectrode array; decoding; brain machine interface

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS054283-03, R01 NS054283] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some movements that animals and humans make are highly stereotyped, repeated with little variation. The patterns of neural activity associated with repeats of a movement may be highly similar, or the same movement may arise from different patterns of neural activity, if the brain exploits redundancies in the neural projections to muscles. We examined the stability of the relationship between neural activity and behavior. We asked whether the variability in neural activity that we observed during repeated reaching was consistent with a noisy but stable relationship, or with a changing relationship, between neural activity and behavior. Monkeys performed highly similar reaches under tight behavioral control, while many neurons in the dorsal aspect of premotor cortex and the primary motor cortex were simultaneously monitored for several hours. Neural activity was predominantly stable over time in all measured properties: firing rate, directional tuning, and contribution to a decoding model that predicted kinematics from neural activity. The small changes in neural activity that we did observe could be accounted for primarily by subtle changes in behavior. We conclude that the relationship between neural activity and practiced behavior is reasonably stable, at least on timescales of minutes up to 48 h. This finding has significant implications for the design of neural prosthetic systems because it suggests that device recalibration need not be overly frequent, It also has implications for studies of neural plasticity because a stable baseline permits identification of nonstationary shifts.

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

4.7
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