Search bioRxivSearch

Biology subjects

Latimer, K. W.

Publications and source records attributed to Latimer, K. W..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Discrete stepping and nonlinear ramping dynamics underlie spiking responses of LIP neurons during decision-making

Neurons in macaque area LIP exhibit gradual ramping in their trial-averaged spike responses during sensory decision-making. However, recent work has sparked debate over whether single-trial LIP spike trains are better described by discrete \"stepping\" or continuous drift-diffusion (\"ramping\") dynamics. Here we address this controversy using powerful model-based analyses of LIP spike responses. We extended latent dynamical models of LIP spike trains to incorporate non-Poisson spiking, baseline firing rates, and various nonlinear relationships between the latent variable and firing rate. Moreover, we used advanced model-comparison methods, including cross-validation and a fully Bayesian information criterion, to evaluate and compare models. These analyses revealed that when non-Poisson spiking was incorporated into existing stepping and ramping models, a majority of neurons remained better described by stepping dynamics, even when conditioning on evidence level or choice. However, an extended ramping model with a non-zero baseline and a compressive output nonlinearity accounted for roughly as many neurons as the stepping model. The latent dynamics inferred under this model exhibited high diffusion variance for many neurons, making them qualitatively different than slowly-evolving continuous dynamics. These findings generalized to alternative tasks, suggesting that a robust fraction of LIP neurons are better described by each model class.

neuroscience

No cause for pause: new analyses of ramping and stepping dynamics in LIP (Rebuttal to Response to Reply to Comment on Latimer et al. 2015)

We recently presented a statistical comparison between two models of latent dynamics in macaque lateral intraparietal (LIP) area spike trains--a continuous ramping (diffusion-to-bound) model, and a discrete stepping model--and found that a substantial fraction of neurons (recorded in two different studies) were better supported by the stepping model (Latimer et al., 2015). Here, we respond to a recent challenge to the validity of these findings that focuses primarily on the possibility of a lower bound on LIP firing rates (Zylberberg & Shadlen, 2016). The paper in question proposed alternate formulations of the ramping model, and argued (via indirect analyses) that half the neurons in the population were better explained by the new model; if correct, this would lead to an even split in the number of neurons better explained by each model. These analyses, while interesting, do not alter the conclusions of our original paper. Here, we review the criticisms raised by Zylberberg & Shadlen and report several new analyses using models with lower bounds. First, we show that the stepping model continued to provide a better description of LIP spike trains when fit using only an early period of each trial. Second, we performed a direct model comparison between our stepping model and a ramping-with-baseline model proposed by Zylberberg & Shadlen; we found that (in a pleasing moment of agreement) roughly half the neurons were better explained by each model. Interestingly, inspection of the cells that switched classifications revealed that many did not strictly exhibit the classical ramping PSTHs that motivated these analyses in the first place. We also examined two other issues raised in recent discussions of LIP: (1) We show that a non-integrating model is consistent with some core aspects of behavioral data previously offered as evidence for continuous integration; and (2) We examine analyses based on the response covariance (\"CorCE\"), and show that it does not reliably distinguish ramping and stepping dynamics for our dataset. Taken together, these discussions highlight the value of data-driven characterizations of both neural and behavioral dynamics with appropriate statistical tools.

neuroscience