Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34534203›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2021

Adaptation supports short-term memory in a visual change detection task.

Brian Hu, Marina E Garrett, Peter A Groblewski, Douglas R Ollerenshaw, Jiaqi Shang, Kate Roll, Sahar Manavi, Christof Koch, Shawn R Olsen, Stefan Mihalas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Simple synaptic modulations implement diverse novelty computations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  5. Hamiltonian energy in a modified Hindmarsh-Rose model.Frontiers in network physiology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Brian HuAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5866-8762
Marina E GarrettAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Peter A GroblewskiAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Douglas R OllerenshawAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3692-1835
Jiaqi ShangAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4642-7128
Kate RollAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4298-6379
Sahar ManaviAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Christof KochAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6482-8067
Shawn R OlsenAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9568-7057
Stefan MihalasAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2629-7100

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The maintenance of short-term memories is critical for survival in a dynamically changing world. Previous studies suggest that this memory can be stored in the form of persistent neural activity or using a synaptic mechanism, such as with short-term plasticity. Here, we compare the predictions of these two mechanisms to neural and behavioral measurements in a visual change detection task. Mice were trained to respond to changes in a repeated sequence of natural images while neural activity was recorded using two-photon calcium imaging. We also trained two types of artificial neural networks on the same change detection task as the mice. Following fixed pre-processing using a pretrained convolutional neural network, either a recurrent neural network (RNN) or a feedforward neural network with short-term synaptic depression (STPNet) was trained to the same level of performance as the mice. While both networks are able to learn the task, the STPNet model contains units whose activity are more similar to the in vivo data and produces errors which are more similar to the mice. When images are omitted, an unexpected perturbation which was absent during training, mice often do not respond to the omission but are more likely to respond to the subsequent image. Unlike the RNN model, STPNet produces a similar pattern of behavior. These results suggest that simple neural adaptation mechanisms may serve as an important bottom-up memory signal in this task, which can be used by downstream areas in the decision-making process.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalMemory, Short-TermPhotic StimulationVisual PerceptionAnimalsBehavior, AnimalComputational BiologyDecision MakingMiceNeural Networks, ComputerTask Performance and Analysis

Identifiers

PMID34534203
PMCPMC8480767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.