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 ArticleResearch Article: New Research, Cognition and Behavior

More Prominent Nonlinear Mixed Selectivity in the Dorsolateral Prefrontal than Posterior Parietal Cortex

Wenhao Dang, Sihai Li, Shusen Pu, Xue-Lian Qi and Christos Constantinidis
eNeuro 14 April 2022, 9 (2) ENEURO.0517-21.2022; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0517-21.2022
Wenhao Dang
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sihai Li
2Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
3Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shusen Pu
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xue-Lian Qi
3Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Xue-Lian Qi
Christos Constantinidis
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235
4Neuroscience Program, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235
5Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232
  • 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.

    Tasks and areas for neurophysiological recordings. A, Frames represent the sequence of event during the MSNG task, in which they were required to report whether two visual stimuli appeared at a matching spatial location, by either continuing to fixate on the center fixation point (match trials), or by saccading to the location (nonmatch trials) of the second stimulus. B, The possible locations of stimuli were arranged in an invisible half circle with 10° of visual angle eccentricity, and the presentations of the stimuli were separated by a 3-s delay period in which no stimuli were displayed. The first stimulus could appear pseudo-randomly at one of nine possible spatial locations. Possible cue locations included a reference location (shown here at the top location) and eight locations deviating from the reference location by an angular distance of 11.25°, 22.5°, 45°, and 90°, either clockwise or counterclockwise. The reference location was changed from session to session and could appear in eight locations 45° apart around the fixation point (see Materials and Methods). This cue was followed by a second stimulus (henceforth referred to as the match or nonmatch). The match would appear at the same location as the cue in approximately half the trials (9/17 conditions). Similarly, the nonmatch would appear at the reference location in approximately half the trials (8/17 conditions). The reference location varied from session to session. C, Neurophysiological recordings were performed in two cortical areas: the dlPFC, including areas 8 and 46, and the PPC, including areas 7a and LIP. IPS, intraparietal sulcus; STS, superior temporal sulcus; AS, arcuate sulcus; PS, principal sulcus.

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

    Exemplar neural responses from the MSNG task. Examples of four dlPFC neurons are shown, exhibiting CS, LMS, and NMS cells, defined by the task variables of stimulus location and task epoch. The x-axes represent the relative location to the center reference location. The y-axes represent the spiking rates during two 500-ms stimulus presentation epochs. Error bars indicate SE.

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

    Proportion of NMS neurons in PFC and PPC. A, Bar graphs show the proportions of cells tuned to stimulus location, task epoch and their interaction (i.e., NMS), in the dlPFC (N = 404) and PPC (N = 654). Increased selectivity to single task variables does not fully explain the increased levels of NMS in the dlPFC. This area continued to display a higher proportion of NMS cells compared with the PPC, even after a permutation test was used to control for different levels of CS (see Materials and Methods). B, Probability and cumulative density function for the F-scores in the ANOVA test on factor of location, epoch and their interaction. C, Classification of NMS cells shows that in dlPFC, the NMS is mainly contributed by cells that shows location selectivity only during the match period. All crosses (black, red, purple, and green) represent NMS cells with color coding for different selectivity categories. Gray dots indicate all other cells.

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

    Population responses in PCA space. Each point represents responses of dlPFC (top) and PPC (bottom) neurons to one stimulus location. Numbers in points denote the eight possible locations of cue and match stimuli in Figure 1B, right, ordered in clockwise fashion. Red planes, Best-fit planes for the representations mean firing rate of neurons in the cue period. Blue planes, Best-fit planes in the match period. PC1, PC2, and PC3 are the first three principal components of the response space.

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

    Behavior performance during each session. Mean correct behavior performance is plotted in successive 40-trial blocks. Top, Performance in match trials, when the match appeared to a position deviating from the reference location by the angle indicated. Bottom, Performance in nonmatch trials, when the cue appeared at the reference location and nonmatch stimulus appeared at the position deviating by the angle indicated. Error bars indicate SEM.

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

    Changes in cell selectivity across a single experimental session. A, Average F-score for the interaction term in the ANOVA test for dlPFC and PPC neurons plotted as a function of trial order across sessions. B, Average F-score for location factor in the AVOVA in either the cue or the match period, is plotted against trial order in a session. dlPFC cells developed selectivity to location over the course of a single session more obviously, compared with PPC. C, Permutation tests demonstrate that both dlPFC and PPC, displayed statistically significant changes in degree of nonlinearity, measured by F-ratio for the interaction term in ANOVA test. x-axes of the plots represent slopes for linear regression of trial-order-dependent F-score change. Vertical lines indicate empirical values form unshuffled data.

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

    Neuronal selectivity in correct and error trials. Selectivity is plotted in the dlPFC and PPC, after controlling for the number of trials and the location pairs that were examined. No decrease in the mean F-score of the interaction term (i.e., NMS) was observed. Box boundaries represent 25−75% data range, whiskers indicate 1.5 interquartile range, and squares indicate means across each brain area.

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

    Location selectivity in the cue and the delay period. A, Left, Bar graphs show the proportions of cells tuned to stimulus location, task epoch (cue vs delay) and their interaction in the dlPFC (N = 362) and PPC (N = 624). dlPFC exhibited a higher proportion of cells showing NMS (the interaction bar) defined by location selectivity during the cue and the delay period. Right, Increased selectivity to single task variables does not fully explain the increased levels of NMS in the dlPFC. This area continued to display a higher proportion of NMS cells compared with the PPC, even after a permutation test was used to control for different levels of CS (see Materials and Methods). B, Three representative cells that showed cue, delay, and both period selectivity for the locations of stimuli. Shaded area represents standard error of the mean firing rate. C, Scatter plot for location selectivity in the cue and the delay period, for PFC and PPC populations. D, Scatter plot indicating the preferred location for the cue (abscissa) and delay period (ordinate) for cells that showed location selectivity in both periods. Each circle represents one neuron. Only neurons with responses that could be fitted by a Gaussian function were included in this analysis (N = 23 in PFC, N = 7 in PPC).

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

    Mixed selectivity for cue location and reward. A, An example cell that reversed its location preference in rewarded versus nonrewarded conditions. Black line represents the time that reward was expected. Shaded area represents standard error of the mean firing rate. B, Bar graphs show the proportions of cells tuned to stimulus location, reward, and their interaction (i.e., NMS), in the dlPFC (N = 314) and PPC (N = 500). Error bar represents standard deviation in 50 resamples.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 9 (2)
eNeuro
Vol. 9, Issue 2
March/April 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
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.
More Prominent Nonlinear Mixed Selectivity in the Dorsolateral Prefrontal than Posterior Parietal Cortex
(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
More Prominent Nonlinear Mixed Selectivity in the Dorsolateral Prefrontal than Posterior Parietal Cortex
Wenhao Dang, Sihai Li, Shusen Pu, Xue-Lian Qi, Christos Constantinidis
eNeuro 14 April 2022, 9 (2) ENEURO.0517-21.2022; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0517-21.2022

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
More Prominent Nonlinear Mixed Selectivity in the Dorsolateral Prefrontal than Posterior Parietal Cortex
Wenhao Dang, Sihai Li, Shusen Pu, Xue-Lian Qi, Christos Constantinidis
eNeuro 14 April 2022, 9 (2) ENEURO.0517-21.2022; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0517-21.2022
Twitter logo Facebook 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

  • mixed selectivity
  • parietal
  • prefrontal
  • working memory

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

Research Article: New Research

  • A progressive ratio task with costly resets reveals adaptive effort-delay tradeoffs
  • What is the difference between an impulsive and a timed anticipatory movement ?
  • Psychedelics Reverse the Polarity of Long-Term Synaptic Plasticity in Cortical-Projecting Claustrum Neurons
Show more Research Article: New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • Visual Speech Reduces Cognitive Effort as Measured by EEG Theta Power and Pupil Dilation
  • A progressive ratio task with costly resets reveals adaptive effort-delay tradeoffs
  • Luminance Matching in Cognitive Pupillometry Is Not Enough: The Curious Case of Orientation
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • 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 Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 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.