Inferring Cortical Variability from Local Field Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The responses of sensory neurons can be quite different to repeated presentations of the same stimulus. Here, we demonstrate a direct link between the trial-to-trial variability of cortical neuron responses and network activity that is reflected in local field potentials (LFPs). Spikes and LFPs were recorded with a multielectrode array from the middle temporal (MT) area of the visual cortex of macaques during the presentation of continuous optic flow stimuli. A maximum likelihood-based modeling framework was used to predict single-neuron spiking responses using the stimulus, the LFPs, and the activity of other recorded neurons. MT neuron responses were strongly linked to gamma oscillations (maximum at 40 Hz) as well as to lower-frequency delta oscillations (1-4 Hz), with consistent phase preferences across neurons. The predicted modulation associated with the LFP was largely complementary to that driven by visual stimulation, as well as the activity of other neurons, and accounted for nearly half of the trial-to-trial variability in the spiking responses. Moreover, the LFP model predictions accurately captured the temporal structure of noise correlations between pairs of simultaneously recorded neurons, and explained the variation in correlation magnitudes observed across the population. These results therefore identify signatures of network activity related to the variability of cortical neuron responses, and suggest their central role in sensory cortical function. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The function of sensory neurons is nearly always cast in terms of representing sensory stimuli. However, recordings from visual cortex in awake animals show that a large fraction of neural activity is not predictable from the stimulus. We show that this variability is predictable given the simultaneously recorded measures of network activity, local field potentials. A model that combines elements of these signals with the stimulus processing of the neuron can predict neural responses dramatically better than current models, and can predict the structure of correlations across the cortical population. In identifying ways to understand stimulus processing in the context of ongoing network activity, this work thus provides a foundation to understand the role of sensory cortex in combining sensory and cognitive variables.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".