- Poster presentation
- Open Access
How is stimulus processing of the lateral geniculate nucleus derived from its input(s)?
BMC Neuroscience volume 10, Article number: P125 (2009)
LGN neurons can respond with extreme precision to a variety of temporally varying stimuli . This precision requires non-linear processing of the stimulus and therefore cannot be described by standard linear (or linear-non-linear, LN) models. Rather, in previous work, we have found that precision arises through the interplay of an excitatory receptive field and a similarly tuned – but delayed – suppressive receptive field, allowing for fine time scales in the LGN response to arise in the brief window where excitation exceeds the suppression . However, it is not clear whether such non-linear interaction arises in the retina, at the retinogeniculate synapse itself or involves other secondary LGN inputs.
To investigate this, we applied a newly developed a Generalized Non-Linear Modeling (GNLM) framework to data involving the simultaneous recording of LGN neurons and their predominant retinal ganglion cell (RGC) input. This framework uses efficient maximum-likelihood optimization , adapted to include nested non-linear terms [2, 4]. Using this novel approach, we simultaneously optimize the shape of postsynaptic currents resulting from RGC stimulation along with other non-linear excitatory and inhibitory elements tuned to the visual stimulus, based on the observed RGC and LGN spike trains alone. We also can directly characterize the non-linear elements in the RGC.
We found that while there were subtle non-linear elements in the RGC response, they were amplified in that of the LGN. Consistent with previous reports , summation with a threshold explains a large part of the increased sparseness of LGN responses relative to those of the input RGC. However, an additional opposite-sign suppressive term was also present, possibly contributing to the push-pull nature of the LGN response observed in intracellular recordings . In many cases, we also detected additional non-linear excitatory inputs, possibly resulting from other RGC inputs. Interestingly, such additional terms were much more sensitive to contrast than the dominant input, possible resulting in the well-known contrast gain control effects, though present both at the level of the retina and LGN.
Thus, the GNLM modeling methods reveal how non-linear computation performed is performed the RG synapse, and allows for more general characterization of non-linear computation throughout the visual pathway.
Butts DA, Weng C, Jin JZ, Yeh CI, Lesica NA, Alonso JM, Stanley GB: Temporal precision in the neural code and the time scales of natural vision. Nature. 2007, 449: 92-95. 10.1038/nature06105.
Butts DA, Jin JZ, Weng C, Alonso JM, Stanley GB: The computation underlying the precise timing of visual neuron spike trains. [http://biology.umd.edu/ntlab/GNLM_LGN.pdf]
Paninski L: Maximum likelihood estimation of cascade point-process neural encoding models. Network: Comput Neural Syst. 2004, 15: 243-262. 10.1088/0954-898X/15/4/002.
Ahrens MB, Paninski L, Sahani M: Inferring input nonlinearities in neural encoding models. Network: Comput Neural Syst. 2008, 19: 35-67. 10.1080/09548980701813936.
Carandini M, Horton JC, Sincich LC: Thalamic filtering of retinal spike trains by postsynaptic summation. Journal of Vision. 2007, 7: 1-11. 10.1167/7.14.20.
Wang X, Wei Y, Vaingankar V, Wang Q, Koepsell K, Sommer FT, Hirsch JA: Feedforward excitation and inhibition evoke dual modes of firing in the Cat's visual thalamus during naturalistic viewing. Neuron. 2006, 55: 465-478. 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.06.039.