Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 7.
Published in final edited form as: Neuron. 2016 Aug 11;91(5):1154–1169. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.07.032

Figure 6. Differential decoding of hunger state vs. cue identity from single-trial ensemble activity across areas.

Figure 6

A–C. Using single-trial FC responses in simultaneously-recorded populations of neurons, we could correctly predict hunger state with greater than chance (50%) accuracy using a simple linear classifier. In LA→POR (C) and POR (B) populations, the classifier performed significantly better in differentiating trials between food-restricted vs. sated conditions than between food-restricted vs. sham-satiation conditions, while this was not the case in V1 (A), suggesting that hunger state is more strongly represented in POR and LA→POR than in V1 populations.

D. By contrast, when discriminating between the identity of two non-rewarded visual cues (QC vs. NC), the same classifier performed equally well using population responses of V1 or POR neurons, but at chance levels using population responses of LA→POR neurons (due to the low number of QC/NC responsive cells in LA). * p<0.005, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum, Bonferroni corrected; Errorbars: SEM. FC: food cue; QC: quinine cue; NC: neutral cue.