Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Neuroscience and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: Eighteenth Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS*2009

Open Access Poster presentation

How is stimulus processing of the lateral geniculate nucleus derived from its input(s)?

Daniel A Butts1* and Alex R Casti23

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

2 Department of Mathematics, Cooper Union School of Engineering, New York, NY 10003, USA

3 Department of Neuroscience, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Neuroscience 2009, 10(Suppl 1):P125  doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-S1-P125


The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/10/S1/P125


Published:13 July 2009

© 2009 Butts and Casti; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Poster presentation

LGN neurons can respond with extreme precision to a variety of temporally varying stimuli [1]. 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 [2]. 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 [3], 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 [5], 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 [6]. 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.

References

  1. 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. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  2. 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] webcite

  3. Paninski L: Maximum likelihood estimation of cascade point-process neural encoding models.

    Network: Comput Neural Syst 2004, 15:243-262. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  4. Ahrens MB, Paninski L, Sahani M: Inferring input nonlinearities in neural encoding models.

    Network: Comput Neural Syst 2008, 19:35-67. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  5. Carandini M, Horton JC, Sincich LC: Thalamic filtering of retinal spike trains by postsynaptic summation.

    Journal of Vision 2007, 7:1-11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  6. 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. Publisher Full Text OpenURL