Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Sensory and Motor Systems

Neural Coding of Perceived Odor Intensity

Yevgeniy B. Sirotin, Roman Shusterman and Dmitry Rinberg
eNeuro 12 November 2015, 2 (6) ENEURO.0083-15.2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0083-15.2015
Yevgeniy B. Sirotin
1The Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10065
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Roman Shusterman
2Janelia Farm Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Virginia 20147
3Sagol Department of Neurobiology, University of Haifa, Haifa 34905, Israel
5Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97405
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dmitry Rinberg
2Janelia Farm Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Virginia 20147
4NYU Neuroscience Institute, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York 10016
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    MTC responses change with odor concentration. A, Sniff-warped raster and PSTH plots of sharp excitatory (I-cyan), excitatory (II-brown), and inhibitory (III-green) responses of individual MTCs for 3-fold and 10-fold changes in odor concentration (shown as color shades). Top, Schematic sniff waveform. Gray shading, Inhalation; gray trace, activity of the MTC during blank sniffs. Vertical dashed lines indicate the beginning and end of inhalation interval. B, Distribution of different response types observed in the data. C, Scatter plot comparing amplitude and latency of sharp, excitatory and inhibitory responses (color notations as in B). Boxplots show marginal response distributions: circle is median, thick line is the IQR, thin lines on either side extend to 1.5 × IQR beyond the 25% and 75% quartiles or the farthest data point, whichever is smaller. D, Normalized distributions of changes of latencies (left column), amplitude (central column), and firing rate (right column) with a threefold concentration change across cells for different response types (color notations as in B). Colored asterisks denote significance of test for zero median (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; Wilcoxon rank sum test). Black solid and dashed lines show distributions of response latencies for early (<100 ms) and late (>100 ms) responses respectively. Black asterisks denote significant differences between two distributions. Arrows mark the position of the median.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    A, Latency of the first spike estimated using distributions of interspike intervals (Shusterman et al., 2011) for responses identified as sharp pooled across all odors and concentrations versus the latency of the peak PSTH for the same response. B, Difference in absolute PSTH latency between sharp responses to high and 3× lower concentrations versus the relative latency estimated using cross-correlation (see Materials and Methods).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    MTC responses change with repeated sampling. A, Sniff-warped raster and PSTH plots of sharp excitatory (I), excitatory (II), and inhibitory (III) responses of single MTCs during the first, fourth, and seventh sniff cycles (shown as color shades). A schematic of the sniff waveform is shown above the plots. Gray shading and vertical dashed lines delineate inhalation period. Gray trace, Activity of the mitral/tufted cell during unodorized sniffs. B, Scatter plot comparing amplitude and latency of excitatory, sharp, and inhibitory responses on the seventh sniff following odor onset. Boxplots show marginal response distributions, as in Figure 1C . Color conventions as in Figure 1. C, Colored lines are normalized distributions of changes in latency, amplitude, and firing rate of sharp, excitatory, and inhibitory responses with adaptation (difference between first and seventh sniffs). Black solid and dashed lines are the same distributions for early and late responses. Notations are same as in Figure 1D .

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Correlated changes in response features for concentration and adaptation. From left to right, plots show changes in the latency, amplitude, and mean firing rate. Points are individual response sets. Response types are indicated by color as in Figure 1. Box plots show distributions of response changes across cells for concentration and adaptation. Conventions are as in Figure 1. Reported r values are Spearman correlation coefficients computed independently for the three response types. Black arrows mark positions of the three example cells in Figures 1 and 2.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Spike count unlikely to code odor intensity. A, Average number of spikes observed on a single sniff for each unit as a function of odor concentration. B, Average number of spikes per sniff per cell observed on each sniff for the three tested concentrations and baseline (gray, baseline; light blue, 0.1; dark blue, 0.3; red, 1.0). Error bars indicate the SD across trials.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Principal component analysis of the population vector changes with concentration and adaptation. A, B, The full temporal population vectors plotted in the space of the first and second (A) and second and third (B) principal components. Large symbols, Average PC projection of all first sniffs (black) and seventh sniffs (gray); small symbols, projection of 10 independent subsets of the full dataset (shaded ovals, SD). Blank is cross symbol; concentration 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0, respectively, are circles, squares, and triangles. Black lines connect first sniffs of different concentrations. Gray lines connect first and seventh sniffs of the same concentration. Numbers denote the presented concentrations. C, D, Same as A and B, but for average firing rate population vector.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Adaptation increases concentration identification error. A, Results of classification analysis for concentration discrimination between four levels (0.0, 0.1, 0.3, 1.0): average probability of classification (empty circles) of temporal patterns of MTCs at the first sniff as a function of concentration mismatch between actual concentration and classified concentration (1 corresponds to correct classification, 3(10) is the classification mismatch for 1(2) step threefold concentration differences) for different numbers of cells (shading from lightest to darkest corresponds to 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 67 cells). Solid lines are Gaussian fits of classification probability: Embedded Image , where p1 is a probability of correct classification, and σ is the concentration classification error in log10 units. Inset, Concentration classification error as a function of number of cells included in classification. Vertical dashed line: threefold concentration difference. B, Classification performance for all 67 cells for different sniffs following odor onset (black, sniff 1; gray, sniffs 2-7). Inset: concentration classification error for sniff 1 (black) vs later sniffs (gray). Dashed line: median for sniffs 2+.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Adaptation decreases the encoded odor concentration. Single-trial responses were classified based on their Euclidean distance to the average responses to the three concentrations presented on the first sniff and the average blank response. A, Schematics of the classification process for three concentrations (left, 0.1; middle, 0.3; right, 1.0). Responses on a given sniff and concentration (examples are shown in boxes) are classified against responses on the first sniff. The arrows from sniff 5 (shaded box) illustrate match probabilities between this sniff and responses on the first sniff. B, For each concentration (left to right), grayscale plots show the classifier match probability (see bar on right) for responses on a given sniff (x-axis) with the average concentration responses on the first sniff (y-axis). C, Equivalent concentration for each sniff calculated as the average match probability weighted by concentration (circles), and distributions of classification results: thin line is the 10-90% interval; and thick lines are the 25-75% interval.

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    Effect of adaptation on perceived odor intensity. A, Average intensity ratings for different concentrations of the odor pinene obtained on the first sniff (black) and after adaptation (gray). Curve denotes average Hill equation fit between concentration and perceived intensity. Concentration has been normalized such that concentration 1 corresponds to 60 ml/min saturated vapor diluted in a typical 2 s inhalation and a peak flow rate of 50 L/min (minimum 0.12% saturated vapor). Inset, Rating noise (rating SD/mean). B, Perceived intensity of the odor stimulus with concentration 1 across sniffs from a constant odor source. C, Equivalent concentration computed as the concentration with the same intensity rating on the first sniff extrapolated from the Hill equation fit for individual subjects (schematized by dashed gray lines). Error bars indicate the SD across subjects included in the analysis. D, Rating noise as a function of presented odor concentration for pinene (dashed) and isoamyl acetate (solid).

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 2 (6)
eNeuro
Vol. 2, Issue 6
November/December 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Neural Coding of Perceived Odor Intensity
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Neural Coding of Perceived Odor Intensity
Yevgeniy B. Sirotin, Roman Shusterman, Dmitry Rinberg
eNeuro 12 November 2015, 2 (6) ENEURO.0083-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0083-15.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Neural Coding of Perceived Odor Intensity
Yevgeniy B. Sirotin, Roman Shusterman, Dmitry Rinberg
eNeuro 12 November 2015, 2 (6) ENEURO.0083-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0083-15.2015
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Concentration versus adaptation
  • Extracellular Electrophysiology
  • human psychophysics
  • olfactory bulb

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • Distinguishing fine structure and summary representation of sound textures from neural activity
  • Anatomical Connectivity of the Intercalated Cells of the Amygdala
  • Spatiotemporal regulation of de novo and salvage purine synthesis during brain development
Show more New Research

Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Lateralization and time-course of cortical phonological representations during syllable production
  • Pupil size is sensitive to low-level stimulus features, independent of arousal-related modulation
  • The Antiarrhythmic Drug Flecainide Enhances Aversion to HCl in Mice
Show more Sensory and Motor Systems

Subjects

  • Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.