Perceptual learning has been used to probe the mechanisms of cortical plasticity in the adult brain. Feedback projections are ubiquitous in the cortex, but little is known about their role in cortical plasticity. Here we explore the hypothesis that learning visual orientation discrimination involves learning-dependent plasticity of top-down feedback inputs from higher cortical areas, serving a different function from plasticity due to changes in recurrent connections within a cortical area. In a Hodgkin-Huxley-based spiking neural network model of visual cortex, we show that modulation of feedback inputs to V1 from higher cortical areas results in shunting inhibition in V1 neurons, which changes the response properties of V1 neurons. The orientation selectivity of V1 neurons is enhanced without changing orientation preference, preserving the topographic organizations in V1. These results provide new insights to the mechanisms of plasticity in the adult brain, reconciling apparently inconsistent experiments and providing a new hypothesis for a functional role of the feedback connections.
The adult brain remains plastic long after the developmental period [1]. This ability to remain plastic is fundamental for the adult brain to be able to learn and adapt in the ever-changing sensory environment. However, we do not fully understand the limits and mechanisms of the adult brain plasticity [2]. Perceptual learning – improvement in perception due to experience with stimuli – has been used to explore plasticity in sensory cortices [3]. In particular, stimulus specificity of the improvements of orientation discrimination [4]–[6] suggests that the primary visual cortex, area V1, where neurons have small receptive fields, is the site for cortical changes that underlie the improvement of orientation discrimination. However, it is still unclear what cellular and synaptic changes in V1 are responsible for such perceptual learning. Reports of learning-dependent changes of V1 neurons are inconsistent: Learning to discriminate orientations of visual stimuli in one study resulted in sharpening orientation tuning curves in a subgroup of V1 neurons [7] (Fig. 1A–D); others found instead that responses to the trained orientation reduced in V1 neurons [8] (Fig. 1E, F). In both studies, V1 neurons responded preferably to the same orientations as they did before learning, thus preserving the topographic organization in V1. Previous models of visual perceptual learning based on plasticity of the recurrent and feedforward connections [9]–[10] could neither explain the observed stability of orientation preferences of V1 neurons nor reconcile the findings of the aforementioned experiments. Here we suggest that learning-dependent changes in V1 cortex involve top-down projections into V1 from higher cortical areas. In a spiking neural network model of visual cortex (Fig. 2), we showed that repeated stimulus presentations resulted in strengthening the feedforward connections from V1 neurons to neurons in a higher visual area (such as area V2). Greater activity in V2 in turn led to strengthening the feedback connections from V2 to V1 neurons, which helped to maintain the stability of the V1–V2 network through shunting inhibition [11]–[12]. As a consequence of the shunting inhibition, V1 neurons had enhanced orientation selectivity and responded to a narrower range of orientations. The diffuse nature of the feedback inputs to V1 neurons allowed improvement of orientation selectivity in V1 neurons without changing their orientation preferences, thus preserving the map of orientation representations in V1. The feedback model reproduced both the previously observed sharpening and reduction of neural responses, but not in the same V1 neurons. We assume that previous studies might have recorded from different populations of V1 neurons. We suggest that the stability of cortical representations in V1 may be critical for normal visual processing, and learning-dependent plasticity of visual cortex could be based on mechanisms that preserve the topography of cortical maps.
To explore mechanisms of learning-induced changes in V1 we designed a simple network model consisting of two cortical areas (V1 and V2) and including plastic feedforward and feedback connections (Fig. 2; see also Models). In the model, a stimulus was presented to V1 neurons on many repetitions, which resulted in strengthening the feedforward connections from V1 to V2 neurons (Fig. 3A). Higher levels of activity in V2 neurons in turn led to strengthening the feedback connections from V2 back to V1 neurons. The excitatory feedbacks targeted both the excitatory and inhibitory neurons in V1 (Fig. 3B) and resulted in balanced recurrent excitatory and inhibitory currents in V1, which canceled each other at the resting potential of V1 neurons leading to shunting inhibition of V1 neurons (Fig. 3C). Strengthening the feedback inputs with learning did not change the balance but increased the amplitudes of both the recurrent excitatory and inhibitory currents (Fig. 3D). Thus, although the feedback inputs were excitatory, they suppressed activity in V1 neurons through shunting inhibition mechanism, thus maintaining stability of the network. Due to the diffuse nature of the feedback inputs in the model, the shunting inhibition affected responses of all V1 neurons. By applying a range of input stimuli, we tested f-I curve in a V1 neuron that did not respond to the trained stimulus but received the modified feedback input. After training, the f-I curve of the V1 neuron shifted to the right, resulting in a subtractive effect on neural responses (Fig. 3E). This was because the strong feedback inputs resulted in stronger recurrent excitatory and inhibitory input currents, which decreased input resistance at the resting potential of the neuron. As we the depolarized membrane potential by applying a direct current to the V1 neuron, the driving force of the inhibitory current increased and the driving force of the excitatory current to the neuron decreased causing shunting inhibition in the neuron. Thus, shunting inhibition can reduce neural responses by counteracting the driving stimulus, as was previously predicted [12]. After training the model with a stimulus, we observed that both amplitude and width of tuning curve of a V1 neuron that preferred the trained orientation reduced due to the shunting inhibition (Fig. 4A, B). However, slope of the neuron' s tuning curve did not change significantly (Fig. 4D). We refer to this change in the tuning curve as “reduction” of the response. In another V1 neuron, for which the trained orientation was not the preferred one, reduction of the width of the tuning curve was greater than reduction of the response amplitude (Fig. 4B, C), which steepened the slope of the tuning curve (Fig. 4D). We refer to this change as “sharpening” the tuning curve. Thus, the reduction of responses was observed in V1 neurons that preferred the trained orientation, and sharpening of tuning curves was observed in V1 neurons that responded to the trained orientation but preferred orientations different from the trained one. To understand causes of different changes of the tuning curves of V1 neurons (Fig. 4), we explored stimulus dependence of neural changes in V2. Learning resulted in strengthening connections from excitatory neurons representing the trained stimulus in V1 to excitatory neurons representing the trained stimulus in V2 (Fig. 5A). Higher activity in those V2 neurons resulted in strong feedback inputs to all V1 neurons (Fig. 5D), which led to overall reduction of neural responses in V1 due to shunting inhibition (Fig. 5E, red lines). A novel stimulus activated a population of V2 neurons that included some V2 neurons with previously modified connections and other V2 neurons with unmodified connections (Fig. 5B). Hence, the feedback inputs from the experienced V2 neurons were combined with feedback inputs from naïve V2 neurons, which resulted in a lesser increase of the overall feedback inputs to V1 neurons (Fig. 5D) and led to a sharper tuning curve (Fig. 5E, green lines). Finally, a stimulus that activated V2 neurons with unmodified synapses (Fig. 3C) did not change the feedback inputs to V1 (Fig. 5D), therefore, no changes of tuning curves were observed in V1 neurons (Fig. 5E, purple lines). Thus, after learning, strength of the feedback input depended on orientation of a stimulus: The feedback inputs were the strongest for the trained orientation and weakened as stimulus orientation moved away from the trained orientation. To understand how varying strength of the feedback inputs led to either firing rate reduction or sharpening of the tuning curves of V1 neurons (Fig. 4A and 4C), we analyzed how recurrent interactions within V1 network change response properties of V1 neurons by comparing the responses of two V1 neurons positioned at different locations with respect to the stimuli. In agreement with experimental data from V1 [13]–[15], recurrent interactions among V1 neurons increased responses of strongly responding V1 neurons and suppressed responses of weakly responding V1 neurons (Fig. 6A). This occurred because recurrent interactions effectively increased nonlinearity of input-output relations in V1 neurons (Fig. 6B). The new input-output function had an intermediate area where the slope changed most strongly. We refer to this region as an area of strong nonlinearity. The trained stimulus, which was the preferred stimulus for neuron A (Fig. 6C), evoked strong feedback inputs and resulted in proportional reduction of neural responses in both strongly (e. g. neuron A) and weakly (e. g. neuron B) responding V1 neurons (Fig. 6C). This proportional reduction was because the strong feedback equally affected neurons A and B by shifting responses in both neurons beyond the area of strong nonlinearity (Fig. 6D). A novel stimulus, which was the preferred for neuron B, evoked weaker feedback inputs and led to the sharpening of V1 neural responses (Fig. 6E). This sharpening was because not-so-strong feedback affected neurons A and B differently. The feedback shifted the response of neuron A beyond the area of strong nonlinearity, which led to a strong reduction of its response. In contrast, the response of neuron B remained outside the area of strong nonlinearity and displayed only a minor decrease (Fig. 6F). This difference in the firing rate change of different V1 neurons resulted in sharpening of the population response (Fig. 6E). Thus, the strong nonlinearity of the input-output function of V1 neurons and the varying strength of the feedback inputs produced different changes in the neural population, reducing the responses of some neurons and sharpening the tuning curves of others. These changes of the population responses observed in our model were similar to the reported changes of the tuning curves in V1 neurons following perceptual learning [7]–[8].
Our model pertains to experiments that involve learning to discriminate low-level features of visual stimuli presented at a particular location within receptive field of V1 neurons. We explored here if learning-induced changes in V1 were not due to synaptic plasticity of short-range recurrent connections among nearby V1 neurons within a hypercolumn but instead were due to changes in feedback inputs to V1 neurons from neurons in higher visual areas. There may be other types of plasticity in the long-range horizontal connections between distant hypercolumns that can explain other types of learning experiments involving complex tasks and large stimuli [25]–[27]. Reduction of neural responses and sharpening of tuning curves in our model resulted from strong nonlinearity of input-output relations in V1 neurons and varying strengths of stimulus evoked feedback inputs to V1 neurons. The intrinsic nonlinearity of input-output relations in V1 neurons was further amplified by recurrent interactions. The variation of strengths of the feedback inputs resulted from the assumption that a population of V2 neurons representing a stimulus had a finite size. Therefore, the trained and novel stimuli evoked responses in an overlapping but different neuronal populations, which resulted in different feedback inputs to V1 neurons upon presentation of the trained vs. novel stimuli. Thus, both reduction of the neural responses and sharpening were observed in V1 network but in different populations of V1 neurons with respect to the location of stimulation. The learning process in the model was incremental: More training resulted in stronger feedforward and feedback connections, and therefore led to stronger reduction and sharpening. Robustness of the results was tested by varying the synaptic weights in the model, which produced consistent behavior over a range of parameter values. Other aspects of the model were based on neural data and did not affect the conclusions. In a previous study, driving a spiking neuron with balanced excitation and inhibition currents changed the slope of the gain function (input-output function) [11]. The changes of the gain functions were caused by shunting inhibition due to balanced excitation and inhibition and noise in the input currents. However, in perceptual learning experiments analysis of noise in V1 neural responses before and after learning did not show any change in the noise level [7]. In the current model, input noise did not change with training because the firing rates in V1 did not increase with learning, and firing rates in V2 were maintained through the feedback mechanism. Thus, in the model, balanced excitatory and inhibitory feedback currents were solely responsible for the subtractive inhibition in V1 neurons, in agreement with the experiments. In our model, the feedback mechanism of learning resulted in symmetric changes of the tuning curves in V1. However, tuning curves of V1 neurons can in fact adapt and become asymmetric in response to repeated stimulus presentation [28]. This adaptation may be due to short-term synaptic depression and facilitation in the recurrent connections, which can result in asymmetric changes of the tuning curves. In contrast, the changes in V1 discussed in our study are due to long-term changes in the feedforward and feedback connections. Both adaptation and learning could take place during stimulation and two processes could interact with each other [29]–[31]. The critical distinction between adaptation and learning is that learning, unlike adaptation, is task dependent. Both adaptation and learning can take various forms due to diversity of plasticity mechanisms (Hebbian, homeostatic, reinforcement, etc) that could be evoked by the stimulus [32]. However, with learning to perform a task, changes that enhance performance are reinforced, and changes that do not improve performance are suppressed, a distinction that may depend on a reinforcement signal. We have not included a reinforcement signal in our model, and instead assumed that plasticity of feedforward and feedback connections somehow depended on the task. Although recurrent connections did not contribute to learning in our model, they could be the basis for adaptation. Thus, both learning and adaptation can occur simultaneously and their relative contribution can be context specific. In many experiments on visual perceptual learning, the improvements of perception were stimulus specific [4]–[6], suggesting that early visual areas were possible sites for the changes underlying visual perceptual learning. However, under some conditions learning can be generalized to other locations in the visual field [29], [33]. These observations can be explained by stimulus-invariant changes occurring in higher decision-making cortical areas that augment those in lower visual areas. In our model of learning-induced plasticity of V1, we did not consider if/how changes in V1 could improve perception. In order to understand how perceptual learning could be generalized to other stimuli and locations, we would need to expand the model to include read-out decision-making circuits. However, modeling plasticity in the higher cortical areas, in addition to the changes in V1, is beyond the scope of this study, which is focused on changes that have been observed in V1. Our study suggests that two previously reported inconsistent experimental results [7]–[8] may represent recordings from two different populations of V1 neurons: One population of neurons that prefer the trained stimulus, and another that prefer different stimuli but still respond to the trained stimulus. Our model also predicts that learning results in strengthening feedback inputs into V1, which cause shunting inhibition in V1 neurons. This novel mechanism of learning can be tested by measuring input resistances in relevant V1 pyramidal cells during in vivo stimulation before and after learning. Despite of limited nature of learning-induced changes in V1, these changes could contribute to other learning-dependent changes in visual cortex, because of the hierarchical organization of the visual system [34]–[35]. Indeed, a learning-induced sharpening of orientation tuning curves was observed in an extrastriate visual area V4 [36], which could be at least partially due to more sharply-tuned inputs from V1. Feedback projections are ubiquitous in cortex [37]–[38], but despite recent progress [39]–[42], little is known about functional roles of feedback connections in cortical plasticity. Our work presents a new hypothesis for the role of the feedback connections in cortical plasticity. We propose that top-down inputs are plastic and involved in perceptual learning. This prediction can be tested by blocking synaptic plasticity in extrastriate visual cortical areas and observing whether this would diminish learning-induced improvement of behavior.
We explore the feedback hypothesis in a spiking neural network model of the visual cortex (Fig. 2). The model consisted of two layers. Layer one represented the primary visual cortex V1 and layer two represented a higher cortical area V2. In the biological visual cortex, feedforward inputs from V1 drive activity in V2 neurons, but feedback inputs from V2 neurons back to V1 do not drive but modulate activity in V1 [43]–[44], thus avoiding a strong positive feedback loop that could lead to uncontrolled epileptic-like oscillations [45]. In the model, V1 neurons activated V2 neurons through the convergent feedforward connections (Fig. 2). The diffuse feedback inputs from V2 did not drive V1 neurons, but altered their response functions through shunting inhibition mechanism [11]–[12]. Shunting inhibition in the model was due to the balanced excitatory and inhibitory to the excitatory V1 neurons, which modulated neural responses in V1 neurons by subtracting neural responses to driving stimuli.
The specificity of visual perceptual learning suggests the primary visual cortex, area V1, is the site of neural plasticity that underlies learning. However, V1 does not exhibit topographic changes observed in other sensory cortices with learning, and changes observed in V1 following perceptual learning are contradictory. In a spiking neuronal model of cortical network, we show that feedback inputs to V1 can change the response properties of V1 neurons without changing the topographic organization in V1. The feedback model reconciles previous experiments and provides a new hypothesis for a functional role of the feedback connections.
neural networks
computational neuroscience
biology and life sciences
sensory systems
sensory perception
computational biology
neuroscience
learning and memory
Top-Down Inputs Enhance Orientation Selectivity in Neurons of the Primary Visual Cortex during Perceptual Learning