4.6 Article

Stable Encoding of Visual Cues in the Mouse Retrosplenial Cortex

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 30, 期 8, 页码 4424-4437

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhaa030

关键词

behavior; navigation; retrosplenial cortex; V1; vision

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L021005/1]
  2. Ser Cymru fellowship [80762-CU-080]
  3. Wellcome Trust [100202/z/12/z]
  4. Wellcome Trust ISSF Seedcorn Award [105613/Z/14/Z]
  5. Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship [212273/Z/18/Z]
  6. BBSRC [BB/L021005/1, BB/T007249/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Wellcome Trust [212273/Z/18/Z, 105613/Z/14/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rodent retrosplenial cortex (RSC) functions as an integrative hub for sensory and motor signals, serving roles in both navigation and memory. While RSC is reciprocally connected with the sensory cortex, the form in which sensory information is represented in the RSC and how it interacts with motor feedback is unclear and likely to be critical to computations involved in navigation such as path integration. Here, we used 2-photon cellular imaging of neural activity of putative excitatory (CaMKII expressing) and inhibitory (parvalbumin expressing) neurons to measure visual and locomotion evoked activity in RSC and compare it to primary visual cortex (V1). We observed stimulus position and orientation tuning, and a retinotopic organization. Locomotion modulation of activity of single neurons, both in darkness and light, was more pronounced in RSC than V1, and while locomotion modulation was strongest in RSC parvalbumin-positive neurons, visual-locomotion integration was found to be more supralinear in CaMKII neurons. Longitudinal measurements showed that response properties were stably maintained over many weeks. These data provide evidence for stable representations of visual cues in RSC that are spatially selective. These may provide sensory data to contribute to the formation of memories of spatial information.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据