Theta-Coupled Periodic Replay in Working Memory

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Theta-Coupled Periodic Replay in Working Memory Lluís Fuentemilla, Will D Penny, Nathan Cashdollar, Nico Bunzeck, Emrah Düzel Current Biology, 2010,20(7):
Advertisements

Thomas Andrillon, Sid Kouider, Trevor Agus, Daniel Pressnitzer 
Attention Narrows Position Tuning of Population Responses in V1
Joshua J. Foster, Emma M. Bsales, Russell J. Jaffe, Edward Awh 
Volume 27, Issue 7, Pages (April 2017)
GABAergic Modulation of Visual Gamma and Alpha Oscillations and Its Consequences for Working Memory Performance  Diego Lozano-Soldevilla, Niels ter Huurne,
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages e4 (March 2018)
Araceli Ramirez-Cardenas, Maria Moskaleva, Andreas Nieder 
Aaron R. Seitz, Praveen K. Pilly, Christopher C. Pack  Current Biology 
Pre-constancy Vision in Infants
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages (November 2009)
Ji Dai, Daniel I. Brooks, David L. Sheinberg  Current Biology 
Thomas Andrillon, Sid Kouider, Trevor Agus, Daniel Pressnitzer 
Avi J.H. Chanales, Ashima Oza, Serra E. Favila, Brice A. Kuhl 
Volume 83, Issue 3, Pages (August 2014)
Volume 92, Issue 5, Pages (December 2016)
Huan Luo, Xing Tian, Kun Song, Ke Zhou, David Poeppel  Current Biology 
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages (January 2017)
Learning to Simulate Others' Decisions
Perirhinal-Hippocampal Connectivity during Reactivation Is a Marker for Object-Based Memory Consolidation  Kaia L. Vilberg, Lila Davachi  Neuron  Volume.
Modification of Existing Human Motor Memories Is Enabled by Primary Cortical Processing during Memory Reactivation  Nitzan Censor, Michael A. Dimyan,
Human Hippocampal Dynamics during Response Conflict
Jason Samaha, Bradley R. Postle  Current Biology 
Yukiyasu Kamitani, Frank Tong  Current Biology 
Volume 26, Issue 13, Pages (July 2016)
Volume 26, Issue 13, Pages (July 2016)
Selective Entrainment of Theta Oscillations in the Dorsal Stream Causally Enhances Auditory Working Memory Performance  Philippe Albouy, Aurélien Weiss,
Volume 22, Issue 24, Pages (December 2012)
Tobias Staudigl, Simon Hanslmayr  Current Biology 
Deciphering Cortical Number Coding from Human Brain Activity Patterns
Cultural Confusions Show that Facial Expressions Are Not Universal
Visual Cortex Extrastriate Body-Selective Area Activation in Congenitally Blind People “Seeing” by Using Sounds  Ella Striem-Amit, Amir Amedi  Current.
Empathy and the Somatotopic Auditory Mirror System in Humans
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages (February 2005)
Human Orbitofrontal Cortex Represents a Cognitive Map of State Space
Volume 27, Issue 23, Pages e3 (December 2017)
Single-Unit Responses Selective for Whole Faces in the Human Amygdala
Mathilde Bonnefond, Ole Jensen  Current Biology 
Avi J.H. Chanales, Ashima Oza, Serra E. Favila, Brice A. Kuhl 
Volume 22, Issue 18, Pages (September 2012)
The Occipital Place Area Is Causally Involved in Representing Environmental Boundaries during Navigation  Joshua B. Julian, Jack Ryan, Roy H. Hamilton,
Decoding the Yellow of a Gray Banana
Volume 63, Issue 5, Pages (September 2009)
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages (March 2009)
Volume 28, Issue 9, Pages e4 (May 2018)
Ryota Kanai, Tom Feilden, Colin Firth, Geraint Rees  Current Biology 
Near-Real-Time Feature-Selective Modulations in Human Cortex
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages (March 2015)
Volume 92, Issue 5, Pages (December 2016)
Timing, Timing, Timing: Fast Decoding of Object Information from Intracranial Field Potentials in Human Visual Cortex  Hesheng Liu, Yigal Agam, Joseph.
Robust Selectivity to Two-Object Images in Human Visual Cortex
Noa Raz, Ella Striem, Golan Pundak, Tanya Orlov, Ehud Zohary 
Learning to Simulate Others' Decisions
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages (October 2018)
Event Boundaries Trigger Rapid Memory Reinstatement of the Prior Events to Promote Their Representation in Long-Term Memory  Ignasi Sols, Sarah DuBrow,
Sam C. Berens, Jessica S. Horst, Chris M. Bird  Current Biology 
Attention Samples Stimuli Rhythmically
Phase Locking of Single Neuron Activity to Theta Oscillations during Working Memory in Monkey Extrastriate Visual Cortex  Han Lee, Gregory V. Simpson,
Encoding of Stimulus Probability in Macaque Inferior Temporal Cortex
Volume 23, Issue 18, Pages (September 2013)
Ian C. Fiebelkorn, Yuri B. Saalmann, Sabine Kastner  Current Biology 
Decoding Successive Computational Stages of Saliency Processing
Volume 19, Issue 15, Pages (August 2009)
Sung Jun Joo, Geoffrey M. Boynton, Scott O. Murray  Current Biology 
Social Information Signaling by Neurons in Primate Striatum
Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages (April 2011)
Hippocampal-Prefrontal Theta Oscillations Support Memory Integration
Søren K. Andersen, Steven A. Hillyard, Matthias M. Müller 
Simon Hanslmayr, Jonas Matuschek, Marie-Christin Fellner 
Spatiotemporal Neural Pattern Similarity Supports Episodic Memory
Presentation transcript:

Theta-Coupled Periodic Replay in Working Memory Lluís Fuentemilla, Will D. Penny, Nathan Cashdollar, Nico Bunzeck, Emrah Düzel  Current Biology  Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages 606-612 (April 2010) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.057 Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 The Trial Structure, Subjects' Behavioral Performance, and MVPC Accuracy during Sample Presentation (A) Trial structure of the two variants of a blocked DMS working memory task, one with (configural) and the other without (nonconfigural) associative configural maintenance demands and a control task without maintenance requirements. (B) Behavioral performance at probe for each experimental condition. Working memory performance was better in the nonconfigural than the configural condition [paired t test: t(7) = 4.02, p = 0.005] and accuracy in control and configural was similar [paired t test: t(7) = 0.8, p = 0.45], showing that the two conditions were equated for difficulty. ∗p < 0.05; ns: p > 0.4. (C) Single-subject indoor and outdoor MVPCs were computed separately every 80 ms from −36 ms prior to 764 ms after sample onset during encoding. X axis labels time points where the MVPC was trained and tested. Plots represent subjects' mean MVPC accuracy at sample encoding for control (Cont; black line), nonconfigural (N-Conf; blue line), and configural (Conf; red line) conditions. MVPC results showed correct classification of sample pictures into indoor and outdoor categories from 200–300 ms onward. The statistical threshold for correct MVPC classification was set at p < 0.04 and at p < 0.002 after correcting for multiple comparisons. Error bars denote standard error of the mean (SEM) in (B) and (C). Current Biology 2010 20, 606-612DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.057) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Category-, Condition-, and Task-Specific Reactivations during Maintenance (A) Category-specific replay during the maintenance period (4.5 s; x axis) for each experimental condition and for the 11 different classifiers trained at different time points of sample picture encoding (y axis). Plots represent the percentage of subjects that showed significant (p < 1.8 × 10−5) reactivations for different classifiers (y) and time points (x). (B) Sum of all significant reactivations for all ten (44 to 764 ms after onset of sample image) classifiers collapsed across categories and time points (paired t test one-tailed, ∗p < 0.05 and ∗∗p < 0.01). (C) Similar replay count as in (B) but displayed for each classifier. The x axis refers to each of the classifiers trained at different time points during sample picture encoding. (D)–(F) Condition specificity (nonconfigural versus configural DMS condition) and task specificity (DMS tasks versus control task) of reactivations. (D) Number of significant indoor/outdoor neural pattern reactivations when classifiers trained during control and nonconfigural encoding were tested along indoor/outdoor scene maintenance of the configural condition. This was contrasted (paired t test) with the number of significant reactivations obtained when trained and tested classifiers belonged to configural task. (E) As in (D), but contrasting the number of reactivations obtained during the delay of the control task when classifiers were trained during configural, nonconfigural, and control encoding. (F) As in (D), but contrasting the number of reactivations obtained during the delay of the nonconfigural condition when classifiers were trained during configural, nonconfigural, and control encoding. ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗p < 0.05; ns denotes nonsignificant. In (B)–(F), error bars denote SEM. Current Biology 2010 20, 606-612DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.057) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Theta Phase Coupling of Category-Specific Reactivations during Maintenance (A) Sensor-specific significant (p < 0.05) 6 Hz theta phase locking of reactivations during nonconfigural and configural maintenance. In the topographic plots, C1–C4 denote clusters (minimum of eight significant adjacent sensors) of sensors where phase locking in nonconfigural and configural conditions exceeded phase locking in the control task. Of these clusters, C2 and C3 in the nonconfigural condition and C2, C3, and C4 in the configural condition survived correction for multiple comparisons (see Supplemental Information and Figure S3 for details). (B) Mean 6 Hz PLVs obtained for each cluster identified in (A). Error bars denote SEM. (C) Topographic distribution of significant (red; p < 0.05, minimum of eight significant adjacent sensors) correlations between PLVs (6 Hz) at bilateral frontotemporal sensors and behavioral working memory accuracy in the configural condition. Current Biology 2010 20, 606-612DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.057) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions