Skip to main content
. 2019 Oct 23;10:4814. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12736-y

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10

Impaired sensory coding by neural ensembles in a model of Fmr1-KO layer 4 network. a Network-wide representation of an extra oddball stimulus inserted into a regular stimulus train (orange tick, single trial example) by firing changes. Circle sizes: fraction of neurons at each coordinate. Insets: simulated Vmembrane of representative neurons for regular (black) and oddball (orange) trials. Fmr1+/Y model neurons typically increased firing rates on the oddball trial, but Fmr1−/Y neurons only weakly represented the presence of the oddball stimulus by change in firing rate (bulk of points on diagonal). b Different coding schemes underlie representation of sensory input details for simulated Fmr1+/Y and Fmr1−/Y networks. Fmr1+/Y neurons typically increased their firing rate and advanced their first spike in response to an extra oddball stimulus. Fmr1−/Y neurons showed inflexibility in their spike rate but a bidirectional change in first spike time. Size of points denotes mean spike train dissimilarity for each neuron (van Rossum distance between spike trains on regular and oddball trials). c Population histogram of spike train encoding of oddball vs. regular input patterns. Population average oddball sensitivity of individual cells was reduced in the Fmr1−/Y network model (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). d Classification of input pattern from the spike trains of cell ensembles in the layer 4 model, analogous to readout of input to layer 4 by layer 2/3 neurons. Schematic illustration of random sampling of neurons from the layer 4 network model for input to a linear classifier. e Impaired coding of input detail by ensembles of SCs neurons in the Fmr1−/Y model. Mean leave-one-out decoder cross-validation error for Fmr1+/Y and Fmr1−/Y networks for randomly drawn ensembles of varying sizes between 10 and 500 neurons. At 20 Hz input frequency, ensembles comprised of 10 or 20 Fmr1−/Y neurons performed significantly worse than Fmr1+/Y ensembles (t-test, p < 0.05), and no better than chance at 20 and 50 Hz (t-test vs. responses with permuted stimulus labels, p > 0.05). All Fmr1+/Y ensemble sizes performed better than chance at both frequencies. At 50 Hz, all Fmr1−/Y ensemble sizes performed worse than corresponding Fmr1+/Y ensembles (t-test, p < 0.05)