Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0236684. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236684

Distinct patterns of activity in individual cortical neurons and local networks in primary somatosensory cortex of mice evoked by square-wave mechanical limb stimulation

Mischa V Bandet 1,2, Bin Dong 2,3, Ian R Winship 1,2,3,*
Editor: Gennady S Cymbalyuk4
PMCID: PMC8084136  PMID: 33914738

Abstract

Artificial forms of mechanical limb stimulation are used within multiple fields of study to determine the level of cortical excitability and to map the trajectory of neuronal recovery from cortical damage or disease. Square-wave mechanical or electrical stimuli are often used in these studies, but a characterization of sensory-evoked response properties to square-waves with distinct fundamental frequencies but overlapping harmonics has not been performed. To distinguish between somatic stimuli, the primary somatosensory cortex must be able to represent distinct stimuli with unique patterns of activity, even if they have overlapping features. Thus, mechanical square-wave stimulation was used in conjunction with regional and cellular imaging to examine regional and cellular response properties evoked by different frequencies of stimulation. Flavoprotein autofluorescence imaging was used to map the somatosensory cortex of anaesthetized C57BL/6 mice, and in vivo two-photon Ca2+ imaging was used to define patterns of neuronal activation during mechanical square-wave stimulation of the contralateral forelimb or hindlimb at various frequencies (3, 10, 100, 200, and 300 Hz). The data revealed that neurons within the limb associated somatosensory cortex responding to various frequencies of square-wave stimuli exhibit stimulus-specific patterns of activity. Subsets of neurons were found to have sensory-evoked activity that is either primarily responsive to single stimulus frequencies or broadly responsive to multiple frequencies of limb stimulation. High frequency stimuli were shown to elicit more population activity, with a greater percentage of the population responding and greater percentage of cells with high amplitude responses. Stimulus-evoked cell-cell correlations within these neuronal networks varied as a function of frequency of stimulation, such that each stimulus elicited a distinct pattern that was more consistent across multiple trials of the same stimulus compared to trials at different frequencies of stimulation. The variation in cortical response to different square-wave stimuli can thus be represented by the population pattern of supra-threshold Ca2+ transients, the magnitude and temporal properties of the evoked activity, and the structure of the stimulus-evoked correlation between neurons.

Introduction

Investigations of how the somatosensory cortex responds to artificial forms of stimulation, and to what extent patterns of regional and cellular activity can distinguish between distinct stimuli with overlapping characteristics, is important in interpreting studies that use such stimuli to elicit cortical responses in the healthy brain, or as a measure of cortical excitability and plasticity during disease or after injury [15]. While square-wave and sinusoidal patterns of mechanical limb stimulation have been used in studies after cortical injury, and those studies identified deficits in the amplitude and fidelity of evoked activity after damage to the somatosensory cortex (for example, see [1,2,4,6]), a more detailed investigation across multiple frequencies and intensities of stimulation has not been performed with mechanical square-wave stimuli. Mechanical square-wave stimulation allows precise control of the fundamental frequency (as with sinusoidal stimulation) but includes harmonic frequencies. These harmonics may overlap between different stimuli, and it may, therefore, be more challenging for the somatosensory system to distinguish between these stimuli. Whereas considerable literature exists for somatosensation within the healthy brain in non-human primates (for review, see [7,8]), and the sensory-evoked response properties of the barrel cortex of rodents has been extensively studied [9,10], literature on the sensory evoked response properties of limb associated somatosensory system of rodents is more limited. Given that rodents are a prominent animal model used to study recovery of reaching and upper limb use after central nervous system damage or disability [11,12], it is important to understand how different forms of somatic and movement related stimuli used in rodent research are processed in the rodent somatosensory cortex. Most current research on the limb-associated somatosensory cortex in rodents utilize artificial forms of mechanical [1,1317] or electrical stimuli [1822] to assess sensory-evoked responses using electrophysiology of individual cells or aggregate responses from large cortical regions. Artificial stimuli used for rodent research that may be thought of as relatively simple in comparison to naturalistic stimuli or movements, such as limb oscillation through a single axis of motion, still likely result in the generation of complex multimodal sensory information in the periphery. These multimodal signals may arise from activation of mechanoreceptors at the stimulator attachment site, the propagation of vibration at the fundamental and harmonic frequencies to distal Pacinian corpuscles closely associated with joints and bones [23], the activation of proprioceptive receptors within the muscles and joints, and to a large potential array of signals arising due to deflections of hair follicle associated mechanoreceptors (for review, see [24]). Although particular subsets of cutaneous and proprioceptive mechanoreceptors have long been known in non-human primates to be tuned to characteristics such as stimulus intensity, frequency and receptive field location [7,8,2528], the harmonics resulting from square-wave oscillation of the entire forelimb or hindlimb of mice would likely elicit highly mixed activity in mechanoreceptor populations, with weighted preference to mechanoreceptor populations most sensitive to the particular frequencies and biomechanics of the stimulus.

Calcium imaging has been used as a method for studying activity within regional cortical networks [1,2932]. Here, Ca2+ imaging was used to investigate how the limb-associated somatosensory cortex represents different frequencies of square-wave limb oscillation, and if differential patterns of activity in somatosensory neurons and local networks could be detected within the Ca2+ response. Flavoprotein autofluorescence imaging [3337] was first used to identify limb-associated regions of cortical activation during mechanical forelimb or hindlimb stimulation delivered with piezoelectric actuators [1,38] (Fig 1A). In vivo two-photon Ca2+ imaging was used to optically record the response properties of individual neurons and local neuronal networks within these limb-associated somatosensory regions during multiple frequencies of contralateral forelimb (cFL) or contralateral hindlimb (cHL) oscillation (Fig 1B–1D). Our data shows that the magnitude of the neuronal population response in somatosensory cortex is non-linearly related to the frequency of mechanical limb stimulation. High frequency 100Hz, 200Hz and 300Hz stimuli were found to elicit more responding neurons, a greater response strength, and higher average cross-correlation between neurons than lower frequency 3Hz and 10Hz stimuli. Whereas average population response magnitude within the low frequency and high frequency groups was not a strong differentiator of how populations represented stimuli within these groups, the pattern of responsive neurons within the local neuronal network and differences observed in the cross-correlation maps for populations responding to these stimuli clearly differentiated between stimuli within and between stimulus groups.

Fig 1. Imaging protocols and experimental methods.

Fig 1

(A) Oscillatory stimulation (1s, 100 Hz) of the cFL or cHL during imaging of flavoprotein autofluorescence (FA) was used to define S1FL and S1HL limb associated somatosensory regions, respectively. The time course and regional distribution of FA response to cFL (top) and cHL (bottom) stimulation are shown. Each frame displays the averaged ΔF/Fo fluorescence intensity over the period indicated. FA response maps (see Materials and Methods) were thresholded at 50% of peak response amplitude and merged with an image of the surface vasculature to create color-coded regional maps of cFL and cHL activation. Regional maps from FA imaging were used as guides for membrane-permeant Ca2+ indicator OGB-1 AM injection. Astrocyte marker SR101 was bath applied to delineate astrocytes from neurons. (B) Two-photon imaging setup showing OGB-1 and SR101 labelling in the S1HL of one animal. Ca2+ imaging in both S1FL and S1HL during oscillatory stimulation was used to assess sensory-evoked single-cell responses. Circle depicts neuron not present on the SR101 astrocyte channel. Dotted circle depicts astrocyte labelling that was omitted from analysis. (C) 5 frequencies of stimulation were applied in random order for each animal. 8 trials of each stimulus were tested for each animal. (D) Cortical Ca2+ response to a 1s 200Hz stimulation of the cHL of one example animal. Top left panel depicts an averaged image of the baseline period prior to stimulus onset within the cHL responsive region at 130um depth. Three example cells are indicated on the top left panel with their respective color coded Ca2+ signals found below the Ca2+ imaging montage.

Materials and methods

Animals

Male, two to four month old C57BL/6 mice (n = 10) were used in this study. Mice were group housed in standard laboratory cages in a temperature-controlled room (23°C), maintained on a 12 hr light/dark cycle, and given standard laboratory diet and water ad libitum. All experiments were approved by the University of Alberta’s Health Sciences Animal Care and Use Committee and adhered to the guidelines set by the Canadian Council for Animal Care. Animals were euthanized through decapitation following the end of the imaging session.

Identification of forelimb and hindlimb somatosensory cortex representations

A surgical plane of anesthesia was achieved with 20% (w/v) urethane dissolved in saline and administered via intraperitoneal injection (1.25 g/kg; supplemented at 0.25 g/kg as needed). Body temperature was measured using a rectal probe and maintained at 37±0.5°C. Mice were administered 0.15 mL of Ringer’s solution every 2 hours to maintain hydration levels. The skull was exposed by midline scalp incision and the skin retracted. A metal plate was secured to the skull using cyanoacrylate glue and dental cement and then fastened to the surgical stage to prevent head movement during imaging. A 4 x 4 mm region of the skull overlying the right hemisphere somatosensory region was thinned to 25–50% of original thickness using a high-speed dental drill (~1-5mm lateral, +2 to -2 mm posterior to bregma). This thinned region was covered with 1.3% low-melt agarose dissolved in artificial CSF (ACSF) at 37°C, then covered with a 3mm glass coverslip. Flavoprotein autofluorescence (FA) imaging was performed through this thin skull preparation before in vivo Ca2+ imaging to determine somatosensory limb regions on the cortex. These mapped regions were later used for OGB-1 indicator injection and for determination of imaging window coordinates for Ca2+ imaging following the FA mapping. For FA imaging, the cortical surface was illuminated with a xenon lamp (excitation band-pass filtered at 450-490nm). Autofluorescence emissions were long-pass filtered at 515nm and captured in 12-bit format by a Dalsa Pantera 1M60 camera mounted on a Leica SP5 confocal microscope. The depth of focus was set between 100–200 μm below the cortical surface.

Custom-made piezoceramic mechanical bending actuators were used to elicit oscillatory limb stimulation during FA and Ca2+ imaging. The piezo bending actuators comprised a piezo element (Piezo Systems # Q220-A4-203YB) attached to an electrically insulated metal shaft holding a metal U-bend at its end. The palm of the mouse paw was placed within the U-bend, and the U-bend bent to shape to lightly secure the palm. The metal U-bend made contact across a vertical rectangular area of approximately 3x1mm on the palmar and dorsal surface of the hand. Stimulators were driven with square-wave signals from an A-M Systems Model 2100 Isolated Pulse Stimulator. For FA imaging only, stimulation alternated between contralateral forelimb (cFL) and contralateral hindlimb (cHL) for a total of 40 trials of stimulation of each limb. Placement of actuators was on the glabrous skin of the forepaw or hindpaw, with consistent alignment relative to the flexion of wrist and ankle. Images were captured for 5.0s at 5 Hz (1s before and 4s after stimulus onset; interstimulus interval = 20s). 40 trials for each limb were averaged in ImageJ software (NIH). Frames 1–1.5s after stimulus onset were averaged and divided by baseline frames 1s before stimulus onset to generate a response maps for each limb. Response maps were thresholded at 50% maximal response to determine limb associated response boundaries, merged, and overlaid on an image of surface vasculature to delineate the cFL and cHL somatosensory areas (Fig 1A). These areas were used as guides for Ca2+ indicator injections [1], and were subsequently imaged.

Calcium imaging

Subsequent to FA imaging as described above, the coverslip and agarose were removed and a 3 x 3 mm craniotomy performed centering over the cFL and cHL functional areas, determined via FA imaging. A dental drill was used to progressively thin the overlying skull until the bone could be removed with forceps, leaving the dura intact. The exposed cortical surface was bathed in ACSF pre-heated to 37°C. Pressure injections of membrane-permeant Oregon Green BAPTA-1 (OGB-1) were made 180–200 μm below the cortical surface of the FL and HL cortical regions using glass micropipettes with resistances of 2–5 MΩ [1,32]. After OGB-1 injection, the cortex was incubated for 10min with sulforhodamine 101 (SR101) dissolved in DMSO to label astrocytes [1,32,38,39]. The craniotomy was then covered with 1.3% agarose dissolved in ACSF and sealed with a glass coverslip.

Two-photon imaging was performed using a Leica SP5 MP confocal microscope equipped with a Ti:Sapphire Coherent Chameleon Vision II laser tuned to 810 nm for OGB-1 and SR101 excitation. A Leica HCX PL APO L 20x 1.0NA water immersion objective was used. Images were acquired using Leica LAS AF using two line-averages, a zoom of 1.7x and a frame-rate of 25Hz. Images were acquired at 256x256 pixels over an area of 434x434μm, yielding a resolution of 1.7μm per pixel. Ca2+ fluctuations in neurons, astrocytes, and neuropil were imaged in response to 8 trials at each different frequency and duration of mechanical stimulation (3, 10, 100, 200, and 300Hz for 1s, 0.1s 100Hz & 0.05s 200Hz). While imaging the cHL somatosensory region mapped via FA imaging, only the cHL was stimulated. Likewise, only the cFL was stimulated during imaging of the cFL somatosensory region. The same custom piezo-electric stimulators used for FA imaging were used for calcium imaging. The order of the stimulation frequency was randomized at the beginning of each experiment for each animal. During stimulation, the entire limb underwent an oscillation with the following peak-peak amplitudes by frequency based on the limb weight loaded electromechanical properties of the bending actuator: 280um (3 & 10Hz), 335um (100Hz), 220um (200Hz), 170um (300Hz). To determine these peak-peak oscillation amplitudes, the movement of the limb was imaged using a Dalsa Pantera 1M60 camera mounted on a Leica SP5 microscope using a 2.5X objective. The limb was attached to the stimulator and placed on a black background to increase contrast of the limb relative to the background. Bending actuators were driven by an A-M Systems Model 2100 stimulator, an analog stimulator with 1 microsecond timing (250 ns jitter). Three different imaging frame rates and resolutions were recorded for each frequency of limb stimulus based on the limits imposed by the camera hardware: 58fps at 1024x1024 (17.24ms exposure), 100fps at 512x512 (10ms exposure) and 157fps at 256x256 (6.37ms exposure). As all of these imaging frame rates were undersampling relative to the Nyquist criterion for the 300Hz stimuli, we employed several measures to get an index of the peak-to-peak amplitude of the limb oscillation as follows. For all imaging framerates, we recorded extended video (approximately 5 minutes per recording), then used max intensity projections to determine the maximal bending amplitude of the stimulus at each stimulus frequency. To confirm this method, we compared the max projection measurements and frame-per-frame measurements for low frequency stimuli and found them to be equal. Peak-to-peak deviation measurements from all three imaging framerates at all frequencies were compared and found not to be significantly different. To determine if the peak-to-peak bending amplitude was consistent across multiple stimulus trials, we repeated the video recordings multiple times and separately analyzed each trial. Bending amplitudes were consistent across trials of the same stimulus frequency. Fig 1C depicts the various oscillatory stimuli used throughout this study to elicit Ca2+ responses in cell populations. Fig 1D depicts an example timelapse montage of Ca2+ imaging during limb stimulation and example cell responses.

Two-photon image processing and determination of responding neurons

Using custom scripts written in Metamorph (Molecular Devices, California U.S.A.), a median filter (radius, 1 pixel) was applied to each of the image sequences of 8 trial sweeps at each frequency and duration of stimulation in order to remove photodetector related photon transfer noise (e.g. photon-shot noise) from the digitized images. The 8 sweeps at each stimulus frequency and duration were independently averaged. Regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn around visible neurons and astrocytes were excluded from analysis by removing ROIs that co-labelled astrocytes in the SR101 channel. Raw neuronal fluorescence traces were exported from Metamorph and were imported into Excel (Microsoft, Inc.). A 5-point moving triangular filter was applied to each neuronal trace to remove noise artifacts in the temporal domain. We found that this triangular filter did not affect the overall amplitude or main signal properties of our recorded Ca2+ traces, but did reduce single frame Ca2+ trace artifacts. ΔF/Fo traces were generated from the raw fluorescence traces as previously described [1]. Neuronal and neuropil Ca2+ signals were analyzed in Clampfit 10.0. Due to the large number of signal traces that required analysis (over 40,000 traces; over 6000 neurons; 10 mice), a range of threshold criteria, based on previous research [1,31,4042], were tested to differentiate responsive neuron Ca2+ transients from fluorescent noise. This range of threshold criteria was tested against manual annotation of Ca2+ responses gathered from multiple observers for a small subset of the experimental dataset from multiple animals. Positive identification of a Ca2+ transient from noise within the manual annotation was based on the expected Ca2+ transient waveform demonstrating fast rise on the leading edge of the fluorescence, and a slow decay back to baseline. The threshold criteria found to most effectively select Ca2+ transient waveforms that met this expected waveform shape was selected for identification of Ca2+ transients across all animals. A threshold criteria requiring the Ca2+ fluorescence of the cell, averaged from 8 trials, to increase by 3X the standard deviation of the baseline period ΔF/Fo (baseline defined as 1s before stimulus onset), and remain above this criteria for 160ms (4 successive frames), was used to differentiate the Ca2+ transient waveform of a response of the neuron from random noise fluctuations. The percentage of neurons that met an additional criteria of peak ΔF/Fo greater than 10% were deemed “strongly responsive” neurons (Fig 3D) based on previous studies associating >10% increases in OGB-1 ΔF/Fo with firing of multiple action potentials underlying the Ca2+ response [29]. Neuronal traces that met these criteria were included in subsequent analysis of peak amplitude and area under the curve (AUC) measurements. AUC was measured as the total area under the curve of the ΔF/Fo from when the stimulus began to when the ΔF/Fo returned to the baseline level. AUC was used as a measurement of the sum strength of the calcium transient response over the time course of that particular transient. Neuronal response maps for visualization (Fig 2A) were generated by averaging the calcium imaging frames during the 1s stimulus period for each stimuli and dividing by the average of the 1s baseline frames prior to stimulus onset. Percent of overlapping responsive neurons for each pairwise stimulus comparison (Fig 2G) was calculated by counting the number of cells showing common responses between the pairwise stimuli and dividing by the combined total population responsive to the pairwise stimuli. Percent overlapping responsive neurons was averaged across all animals (N = 10).

Fig 3. Mean population Ca2+ response characteristics do not scale linearly with the number of oscillations in a stimulus.

Fig 3

(A) Ca2+ response traces averaged from all cells at 130μm in the cHL of all animals for each frequency. Grey lines depict individual animal Ca2+ responses, black lines are the average of the grey lines from all animals. Average data for b,c,d, & e are taken from all limb representations from all animals. (B) No change in the mean neuron Ca2+ response amplitude was observed for any of the stimulus frequencies. A significant effect of frequency was observed for the under the curve (AUC) (C) of neuron responses to the different frequencies of stimulation. (D) A significant effect of frequency was observed on the percentage of neurons with responses greater than 10% ΔF/Fo. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Fig 2. Neuronal and population response selectivity to stimulus frequency within the limb associated somatosensory cortex.

Fig 2

(A) Difference images illustrating the averaged change in fluorescence ΔF/Fo from baseline over the 1s stimulus period. Top left panel depicts an averaged image of the baseline period prior to stimulus onset within the cHL responsive region at 130um depth in an example animal. High frequency 100, 200, & 300Hz stimuli elicit greater cortical activation of neurons and neuropil than lower frequency 3 & 10Hz stimuli (quantified in Fig 3). (B,C) Ca2+ traces for individual neurons responding to the different stimuli (average of 8 trials of stimulation per limb) are shown for each stimulus for the particular chosen neuron. The neuron in B is more responsive to high frequency 100, 200, & 300Hz stimulation, and displays minimal response to lower frequency 3 and 10Hz stimuli. The neuron in C responds preferentially to 10Hz stimuli. Plots below Ca2+ traces indicate peak Ca2+ response magnitude for each stimulus (D) Color coded map of responsive neurons superimposed on an optical section at 130μm depth in the cHL of an example animal. Neurons were deemed responsive by threshold analysis of somatic responses, with color representing above-threshold responses to stimulation at the particular frequency and duration stated. High frequency stimuli (100 & 200Hz) elicit a greater number of neurons responsive for these stimuli. The inset image displays the same color code used for each particular stimulus and shows how certain cells within this population are selective in their response to particular stimuli, whereas others display overlap in their responsiveness to multiple different stimuli. (E) Mean percent of neurons responding to each of our stimuli across all animals (N = 10). (F) Mean percent of neurons within each optical section responsive to 1, 2, 3, or 4+ stimuli across all animals (N = 10). (G) Color coded chart displaying the percentage overlap between the neurons responsive to each stimulus for all animals (N = 10). High frequency 100, 200, & 300Hz stimuli display greater overlap in their responsive cell populations as compared to the activated cell population overlap for 3Hz and 10Hz stimuli. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Stimulus-evoked cell-cell correlation analysis

In order to demonstrate a visual example of how the calcium fluorescence of a single cell may correlate with other pixels across an imaging window, a custom Matlab R2018a (Mathworks) script was used to generate an example seed-based stimulus-evoked neuronal correlation map (as shown in Fig 4A). With this script, filtered image sequences of ΔF/Fo were imported into Matlab and the signal trace for a chosen neuron was correlated with the ΔF/Fo of all pixels within the imaging field. A representative image during 1s 100Hz stimulus measured at a depth of 130μm in the cHL region is shown in Fig 4A. Using a separate custom written script in Matlab, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between the z-scored signal traces derived from each of our neuronal ROIs in a given optical section. Pairwise Pearson’s r correlation coefficients were calculated between each pair of neurons in each optical section. These stimulus-evoked correlation coefficient maps (e.g. Figs 4B, 5 and 6) were created by plotting example matrices of these pairwise correlation coefficients at a specific region of S1 (FL or HL) during sensory stimulation of the limb. ROI location co-ordinates were exported from ROI in Metamorph and imported into Matlab in order to compute the pairwise distance between each ROI. The stimulus-evoked pairwise correlation coefficient for each neuron pair was measured as a function of the distance between the pair (for each frequency of stimulation), and a line fit for regression analysis. Determination of stimulus-evoked correlation map equality was performed using the Jennrich test for correlation matrix equality [43] implemented in Matlab (with p < 0.001 considered as significant). A stationary bootstrapping procedure was further used as a further test of the significance of the Pearson’s r calculated between the ΔF/Fo of each neuron pair. Within the stationary bootstrapping procedure, 10000 iterations were run and a mean block length of 5 frames (200ms) was used based on previous studies indicating the minimum period of time between action potentials necessary to detect a calcium transient using OGB-1 [44]. Pairwise r values greater than the 97.5th percentile of the stationary bootstrap are indicated by light blue pixels (Fig 4C) and the correlation map replotted to show only those correlations meeting the bootstrap criteria (Fig 4D). To further determine the degree of correlation map similarity, comparisons of correlation map similarity within repeated trials of the same stimulus, and between trials of different stimuli, were generated using custom Matlab based scripts based on the structural similarity index (SSIM). The SSIM score assessed the localized correlation value, contrast, and structure of correlation maps it was comparing. The SSIM score has a maximal value of 1 that indicates complete similarity between the two maps in comparison. An example of these within and between stimulus comparisons is shown in S1 Fig. SSIM score results were averaged across all animals (N = 10).

Fig 4. Stimulus-evoked pairwise correlations vary as a function of the stimulus frequency.

Fig 4

(A) Example of a seed-cell based correlation technique for a 1s 100Hz stimulus at 130μm in the cHL of one animal. The ΔF/Fo fluorescence over time for the seed cell (orange) was correlated against the fluorescence over time for all other pixels in the imaging frame to generate the correlation map displayed. Example fluorescence traces are shown to the right with an example of a cell with high (blue trace) and low (green trace) correlation to the seed cell. (B) Example heat map matrices of the stimulus-evoked correlation coefficient between a population of 74 neurons within the cFL somatosensory cortex of one example animal. (C) Bootstrapping was used to determine pairwise correlations greater than the 97.5th percentile of the bootstrap and indicated by light blue (see methods). (D) The pairwise correlation values were re-plotted with the correlations that did not meet the bootstrap criteria excluded. (E) A significant effect of stimulus frequency on the mean population correlation coefficient value is observed across all animals (N = 10). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Fig 5. Frequency or quantity representations in cortical Ca2+ transients.

Fig 5

(A) Color coded responsive neuron maps superimposed on an optical section at 130μm depth in the cHL of an example animal (same animal as in Fig 4). Neurons were deemed responsive by threshold analysis of somatic responses (see methods), with color representing above-threshold responses to stimulation at the particular frequency and duration stated. The overlapping image displays the same color code used for each particular stimulus and shows how certain cells within this population are selective in their response to particular stimuli, whereas others display overlap in their responsiveness to multiple different stimuli, despite all stimuli having the same number of limb oscillations (10 mechanical oscillations of the limb). (B) Color coded quantification chart displaying the percentage overlap between the neurons responsive to each stimulus quantified for all animals (N = 10). (C) Example heat map matrices of the pairwise stimulus-evoked correlation coefficient between a population of 74 neurons within the cFL somatosensory cortex of one example animal at 160μm depth for our 10 oscillation stimuli. (D) Structural similarity comparison of the maps for all trials depicts a trend towards greater map similarity for within stimulus conditions than between stimulus comparisons. No effect of frequency was seen for the percent of neurons responding (E), AUC (F), neuron response amplitude (G), or decay tau (H) for responsive neuron populations. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Fig 6. Longer stimuli evoke more consistent patterns of activity in somatosensory neuronal networks.

Fig 6

(A) Example heat map matrices of the pairwise stimulus-evoked correlation coefficient between a population of 74 neurons within the cFL somatosensory cortex of one example animal at 160μm depth for 100 and 200Hz stimuli of different durations. Structural similarity comparison of the maps for all trials depicts greater map similarity for within stimulus conditions than between stimulus for 0.1s 100Hz and 1s 100Hz comparisons (B), and a trend for 0.5s 200Hz and 1s 200Hz comparisons (C). Significantly less map similarity is seen between 1s 100Hz and 1s 200Hz comparisons than for within stimulus comparisons (D). A significant effect of stimulus duration is observed in the percent of neurons responding (E) and in the neuron response amplitude (F). (G) Color coded quantification chart displaying the percentage overlap between neuron populations responsive to each stimulus quantified for all animals (N = 10). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Statistical analysis

Univariate comparisons were made using ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) tests for all statistical tests. Stimulus-evoked correlation between cells was analyzed using the Pearson r. Significance for the slope of the pairwise neuron correlation coefficient by distance was analyzed using multiple t-tests between the mean slope value for each stimulus condition and a no-slope null hypothesis, and adjusted using Bonferroni for multiple comparisons. Statistical analyses were performed in GraphPad Prism 6.0 windows version. A p value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. A p value of ≤0.10 was considered a trend, however not statistically significant. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM.

Results

Stimulus frequency preference within somatosensory cortex neurons

To elucidate the effect of the frequency of oscillatory limb stimulation on Ca2+ response strength at the level of individual neurons within the population, Ca2+ transients evoked by square-wave mechanical limb oscillation were optically recorded during in vivo two-photon imaging. Fig 2A shows representative “response maps” from one animal illustrating post-stimulus increases in OGB-1 fluorescence in response to different frequencies of stimulation applied to the cHL for 1s each. In all animals imaged, differences in the Ca2+ response amplitude and pattern of cortical activation for lower frequency 3/10 Hz stimuli in comparison to higher frequency 100/200/300 Hz stimuli are noticeable, with higher frequency stimuli appearing to result in a greater Ca2+ response (quantified for all animals in Figs 2 and 3). Fig 2B and 2C depict representative neurons selected from the imaging plane shown in A that display different magnitudes in their Ca2+ response to the different stimuli. Notably, the neuron in Fig 2B is more responsive to high frequency 100, 200, and 300Hz stimuli, whereas the neuron in Fig 2C exhibits a mean response that is transient and most strongly activated by 10Hz stimulation.

Patterns of activation to somatosensory stimuli within S1 cortex are distinct

To evaluate the selectivity of neurons to particular square-wave stimuli across local networks of 100–350 cells in somatosensory cortex, threshold criteria were used to define cells exhibiting a significant response to a particular stimulus. Fig 2D depicts a representative color-coded image plane of neurons exhibiting a significant (above threshold) response to each stimulus frequency. Variations in stimulus selectivity are apparent. Neurons selective to a single stimulus frequency are illustrated as a uniformly coloured dot, while neurons responding broadly to multiple frequencies are depicted with 2 or more colors. While individual neurons could be preferentially responsive to particular frequencies of stimulation, a significant main effect of stimulus frequency on the percent of neurons with above threshold responses was observed (F(4, 39) = 4.713, p = 0.0034) (Fig 2E). Notably, high frequency 100 & 200Hz stimuli displayed a significantly greater percentage of above threshold responses relative to 3 & 10Hz stimuli. Consistent with previous research by Hayashi et al., 2018, approximately 15% of neurons exhibited a significant response for the 3Hz or 10Hz stimuli, and approximately 30% of the population exhibited a significant response for each of the 100, 200, or 300Hz stimuli (Fig 2E). The majority of neurons with above threshold Ca2+ responses were responding to multiple stimuli, with approximately 32.7 ± 4.2% selective to a single stimulus, 33.2 ± 1.8% activated by two stimuli, and 34.1 ± 3.8% activated by three or more stimuli (Fig 2F). 60.9% of all neurons that were responsive to 3 or more stimuli were responding to 100, 200, and 300Hz. To further determine the amount of overlap between above threshold responsive neurons for each stimulus, we measured the percentage of cells that demonstrated above threshold responses in common with other stimuli. Consistent with the large population of neurons showing preferential responses to high frequency 100, 200, & 300Hz stimuli, Fig 2G demonstrates that higher frequency stimuli displayed a larger percentage overlap in their responsive cell populations as compared to the percent overlap between lower frequency stimuli.

Mean population Ca2+ response characteristics do not scale linearly with the number of oscillations in a stimulus

Sensory-evoked Ca2+ transients from neurons in S1 were analyzed to determine whether their response characteristics varied proportionately to the square-wave stimulus frequency. If response intensity were defined by the number of repetitive limb oscillations in a stimulus, it would be predicted that the amplitude and decay of the Ca2+ transients would increase with each greater frequency. Fig 3A depicts mean Ca2+ response traces from all above threshold cHL-responsive cells acquired at a fixed depth of 130um from the cortical surface in the S1HL. A greater overall response for high frequency 100, 200, and 300Hz stimuli relative to 3 and 10Hz stimuli is apparent. Quantification of Ca2+ transients from all recorded limb responsive regions across all animals is shown in Fig 3B–3D. Notably, Fig 3B shows that the peak amplitude of the sensory evoked above-threshold Ca2+ transient did not vary significantly according to stimulation frequency. However, a significant main effect of frequency was observed on AUC (F(4, 39) = 4.325, p = 0.0054), with 200Hz stimuli exhibiting significantly greater AUC than 3 & 10Hz stimuli (Fig 3C). No evidence of direct scaling of response properties, such that 10Hz would elicit greater neuron activity than 3Hz, or 200Hz greater activity than 100Hz, was observed.

Because a ΔF/Fo of greater than 10% (measured using OGB-1) has been associated with firing of multiple action potentials underlying the Ca2+ response [29], the proportion of “strongly responsive” neurons with sensory-evoked Ca2+ transient amplitude of greater than 10% ΔF/Fo was determined. The proportion of strongly responsive neurons varied with stimulation frequency (F(4, 38) = 3.669, p = 0.0127) (Fig 3D). Post hoc comparisons confirmed that a larger percentage of neurons exhibited peak amplitude of greater than 10% ΔF/Fo for 100 & 200Hz stimuli compared to 3Hz stimuli.

Stimulus-evoked pairwise correlations vary as a function of the square-wave stimulus frequency

Analysis of the stimulus-evoked correlated activity between neurons was used to further define the structure of pairwise interrelationships of Ca2+ fluctuations resulting from the sensory stimulus across populations of up to 350 neurons per optical section. These correlations provide an approximation of neurons that respond similarly, and thus allowed us to examine patterns of cortical neuron activity during different stimulus conditions. Fig 4A demonstrates a representative example of a seed-cell based stimulus-evoked correlation map for a 1s 100Hz stimulus where the fluorescence over time of the seed cell (orange) was correlated with fluorescence of all other pixels in the image. Neurons with highly correlated and weakly correlated stimulus-evoked activity are observed. Pairwise stimulus-evoked correlation strength between all neurons was also determined. Data for the stimulus-evoked correlation between all cells within network populations was pooled across animals and sorted by stimulus frequency. The distance between neuron pairs was determined by the Euclidean distance between the centers of mass of their cell bodies within the imaging plane. The stimulus-evoked correlation coefficient decreased as a function of the pairwise distance between neurons for all frequencies tested (mean slope of -0.26), a result predicted based on previous studies within the barrel cortex of mice that demonstrate higher correlations among nearby cells [45,46]. The slope of the line fit for the pairwise correlation as a function of distance was not significantly different between stimuli conditions (F(4, 39) = 0.4616, p = 0.7634), thereby indicating a similar decrease in the stimulus-evoked correlation by distance for all stimuli. Notably, all stimulus conditions exhibited a significant negative slope (Single sample t-test relative to theoretically slope of 0, p < .05 with Bonferroni correction for all stimulus conditions). Although this result may suggest a small degree of similarity in the stimulus related Ca2+ measurements for neurons found closer together, the correlation between any two particular neurons is poorly predicted by the distance between them as indicated by very low R2 values for all stimuli (mean R2 of 0.029). The R2 values for all stimuli were not significantly different from each other (F(4, 39) = 0.3522, p = 0.8409), suggesting that this low degree of predictive value did not vary based on the particular stimulus delivered. Thus, these data do not support spatial clustering in response to distinct stimuli. Fig 4B gives a color-coded depiction of the stimulus-evoked pairwise correlation between a population of 74 neurons within the cFL somatosensory cortex of a representative animal. Notably, the pattern of pairwise stimulus-evoked correlations varies between stimuli (p < 0.001, using Jennrich test of matrix equality [43]), thereby illustrating distinct inter-relationships of network activity resulting from different frequencies of stimulation. We further confirmed the significance of these pairwise cross correlations by running a stationary bootstrapping procedure (see methods). Bootstrapping further supported that the pairwise comparisons meeting the bootstrapping criteria varied as a function of the stimulus (Fig 4C and 4D). Across all animals, mean stimulus-evoked pairwise correlation varied significantly as a function of stimulation frequency (F(4, 39) = 2.902, p = 0.0340) (Fig 4E), with a trend towards greater overall stimulus-evoked correlation for high frequency stimuli.

Frequency or quantity representations in cortical Ca2+ transients

Stronger neuronal activation for high frequency 100, 200, & 300Hz stimuli, compared to 3 & 10Hz stimuli, is shown in previous data. However, because the frequency of oscillatory stimulation was varied but duration of stimulation was constant at 1s, the quantity of limb oscillations varied significantly between stimulus conditions. To clarify if stimulus frequency or absolute number of oscillations was the primary driver of distinct patterns of cortical activity, stimuli with 10 absolute oscillations of the limb during the stimulus period were delivered at two frequencies (0.05s at 200Hz and 0.1s at 100Hz). Selective patterns of evoked neuronal Ca2+ responses were still observed with these 10 oscillation stimuli (Fig 5A), with minimal overlap between neurons responsive to each stimulus (Fig 5B). Notably, when stimuli were restricted to 10 oscillations for these 0.05s at 200Hz and 0.1s at 100Hz trials, the lower percentage of responding neurons show reduced overlap relative to longer 1s at 200Hz and 1s at 100Hz stimuli (Figs 2G vs 5B). Fig 5C illustrates stimulus-evoked correlation maps between a population of 74 neurons within the cFL somatosensory cortex of a representative animal for these 10 oscillation stimuli (from the same animal as displayed in Fig 4B). To determine whether the stimulus-evoked correlations observed for these stimuli were repeated over multiple trails during the length of the imaging session, custom Matlab based routines were used to determine the similarity of these maps across trials to generate “within stimulus” comparisons. Stimulus-evoked correlation maps generated from one stimulus were also compared on a trial by trail basis to those generated from the other stimulus to generate “between stimulus” comparisons (see S1 Fig for SSIM method). We observed a statistical trend (p = 0.0540) suggesting higher stimulus-evoked correlation map similarity for within stimulus comparisons as opposed to comparisons between the two different 10 oscillation stimuli (Fig 5D). Observing data from all of our animals studied, the percent of neurons responding, area under the curve, neuron response amplitude, and the Ca2+ response decay tau was not statistically different between 0.05s 200Hz and 0.1s 100Hz stimuli (Fig 5E–5H). Thus, the low percent overlap for these 10 oscillation stimuli and the trend towards dissimilarity when comparing their correlation maps (Fig 5A–5D) is a better indicator of differences between the population responses to these 10 oscillation stimuli than the averaged response characteristics of these populations (Fig 5E–5H).

Longer stimuli evoke more consistent patterns of activity in somatosensory neuronal networks

Within the vibrissal sensory cortex of rodents, the perceived intensity of oscillatory stimuli grows over the course of longer stimulus durations [47]. Fig 5 shows that two short duration stimuli with different frequency, but a fixed absolute number of limb oscillations, activate largely different populations of neurons in the somatosensory cortex. To determine whether the pattern of cortical activity elicited by short duration stimuli would be consistent for longer duration stimuli of the same frequency, short duration 0.1s 100Hz and 0.05s 200Hz stimuli were compared to longer duration 1s 100Hz and 1s 200Hz stimuli, respectively. Fig 6A depicts stimulus-evoked correlation maps from the cFL somatosensory cortex of a representative animal. The structural similarity index was used to compare stimulus-evoked correlational maps between these stimuli of fixed frequency but different duration across multiple trials within the same animals (see S1 Fig for an example of this). A significant main effect was found for the 100Hz stimulus condition (F(2,20) = 4.502, p = 0.0243), with the “Within 1s 100Hz” condition having significantly greater stimulus-evoked map similarity than the “B/T 0.1s 100Hz and 1s 100Hz” condition in post-hoc comparisons (Fig 6B). This effect was not significant for the 200 Hz stimuli, though a similar pattern is apparent (Fig 6C). Furthermore, a significant main effect is detected when comparing 1s 100Hz to 1s 200Hz stimulus condition (F(2,20) = 5.243, p = 0.0148), with the “Within 1s 100Hz” condition having significantly greater stimulus-evoked map similarity than the “B/T 1s 100Hz and 1s 200Hz” condition in post-hoc comparisons (Fig 6D). Thus, stimulus-evoked correlational map structure was more similar for repeated trials within stimuli than for comparisons between stimuli of different duration. Longer duration stimuli also elicited a greater percentage of neurons responding (Fig 6E), slightly greater average neuron response amplitude (Fig 6F), and more overlap between their responsive cell populations (Fig 6G).

To further examine whether short, high frequency stimuli (0.1s 100Hz and 0.05s 200Hz) lead to different cortical responses than long, low frequency stimuli (1s 3Hz and 10Hz), we compared the stimulus-evoked correlational maps of these stimuli across multiple trials within the same animals (S2A and S2B Fig). A significant main effect was found for the cell-cell correlation map similarity for within stimuli comparisons to between stimuli comparisons (F(1.834,18.34) = 12.53, p = 0.0005), with multiple post-hoc comparisons indicating significantly greater map similarity for within stimulus trials as compared to between stimulus trial comparisons (S2B Fig). These stimuli were not differentiated by the mean neuron response amplitude of their responsive neural populations (F(1.811,16.30) = 1.353, p = 0.2835) (S2C Fig), nor the area under the curve of neural responses (F(1.912,17.21) = 2.372, p = 0.1248) (S2E Fig). A significant main effect was however seen for the percent of neurons responding (F(1.829,16.46) = 5.311, p = 0.0186) and for the neuron decay tau (F(2.517,22.66) = 7.051, p = 0.0025), with 1s 10Hz stimuli showing a higher percent neurons responding than 0.05s 200Hz and greater decay tau than 0.1s 100Hz and 0.05s 200Hz (S2D and S2F Fig). A low percent overlap in the responsive neuronal populations was observed between all stimuli (S2G Fig).

Discussion

Calcium imaging is a powerful tool to record sensory-evoked response properties of groups of visually identified neurons in the supragranular cortical layers [1,2932], particularly in rodents. The present study investigated the sensory-evoked Ca2+ response in the primary somatosensory cortex of mice to different frequencies and durations of mechanical square-wave limb stimulation using piezoelectric bending actuators. Bending actuators are often used for the study of cortical excitability during disease or after injury due to their simplicity of use and low cost. Despite having no clear naturalistic equivalent, these stimulators likely provide a highly multimodal input to the somatosensory cortex due to their high oscillation amplitude and method of attachment to the limb. We therefore hypothesized that differential activation of diverse populations of peripheral mechanoreceptors for each stimulus frequency would elicit different patterns of activity in somatosensory cortical neuronal networks, and that these distinct patterns would be apparent when analyzing the activity of neurons in these networks. Consistent with previous studies examining the representation of vibro-tactile stimuli in the mouse primary somatosensory cortex [48], our data demonstrates that patterns of suprathreshold (i.e. spiking) activity in the local neuronal network in S1 are modulated by the frequency and duration of our square-wave stimuli. Notably, Ca2+ responses to square-wave stimuli do not scale proportionally to the absolute quantity of limb oscillations within a temporal period. Instead, 3Hz and 10Hz stimuli appear to show similar levels of cortical activation but are distinguished by their dissimilar patterns of activity in the neuronal network. High frequency 100Hz, 200Hz and 300Hz stimuli all elicit greater response strength (number of neurons active, AUC and percent of strongly responsive neurons) than lower frequency 3Hz and 10Hz stimuli. However, the percentage of neurons responding, the response amplitude and AUC of responsive neurons did not scale linearly with stimulus frequency within the high frequency range. Notably, a trend of reduced response strength is even apparent for cortical responses to 300Hz relative to 100 and 200Hz. This non-linear scaling is consistent with findings that neurons responding to high frequency stimuli over 100Hz are not temporally entrained, but are instead tuned to selective features of the high frequency stimulus [23]. A greater average cross-correlation for high frequency stimuli was observed (Fig 4E), potentially due to stronger and more frequent responses within the neural population to these high frequency stimuli. Stimulus-evoked correlation maps were more structurally similar for repeated stimuli of the same frequency as compared to repeated stimuli between different stimulus frequencies, suggesting a degree of representational consistency across stimulus trials within a single imaging session.

The correlation structure for different stimuli are known to be influenced by multiple types of correlation including signal correlation (rsignal) and spike-count (noise) correlation (rsc) [49,50]. Measured rsc has previously been found to be small when neuron responses are weak [49], and the majority of studies measuring rsc within the primate sensory cortex have indicated low rsc in the range of 0.1–0.2 in pairs of nearby neurons with strong rsignal [49]. Within the mouse whisker barrel cortex, rsc is highest among neurons with similar orientation tuning and excitability to single-whisker deflections [46]. Recent work examining the representation of vibro-tactile stimuli within the limb associated somatosensory cortex of mice has further supported low rsc measures in pairs of excitatory cells with strong rsignal, however with higher rsc among pairs of inhibitory interneurons [48]. It has been argued that minimizing correlation within the neural population serves to reduce representational redundancy and improves representational efficiency [51,52]. The stimulus associated cell-cell correlation maps here defined patterns of activity within the network, and demonstrated that these patterns of activity were distinct between stimuli. Although neuronal activity to repeated presentations of the same stimulus is known to vary on a trial by trial basis [48], our data indicate that the structure of the correlation between neuron pairs remains more consistent across trials of the same stimulus than in comparison of trials between different stimuli. However, Ca2+ imaging deconvolution methods, that have greater precision when combined with Ca2+ indicators of higher temporal fidelity and larger signal-to-noise ratios [5355], were not used in this study to approximate spike times and compute spike-count correlations for the pairwise comparisons. Furthermore, the sparse and discontinuous nature of the five frequencies of stimulation tested does not give sufficient information to determine precise tuning curves for cells within the network. Stimulus-evoked correlation maps also can not define whether cells displayed correlated Ca2+ signals due to sensory-evoked Ca2+ transients, or due to neural silence during the stimulus period. Future studies could make use of Ca2+ indicators with higher temporal fidelity, such as the GCaMP7F Ca2+ indicator [56] or GEVIs [57], to better deconvolve spike timing and compute both signal and spike-count correlations and their contribution to the neuronal representation for each stimulus.

A general feature of hierarchical somatosensory systems holds that activity within neural populations along the afferent pathway from the periphery are organized into systematic body maps according to their somatotopically arranged receptive fields. Within this system, stimulus information is parcellated on a hierarchical network level as relevant features from each previous level are selectively represented within the higher-order representation of the next level [8]. Although many of the fundamental mechanisms by which afferent signals arise from peripheral mechanoreceptors have been well studied [8,24,5864], mounting evidence points to a large degree of functional overlap between neurons at multiple levels of the CNS in responding to afferent signals from multiple somatosensory modalities [8,6569]. Recent research strongly indicates that single cells within S1 cortex and below may already hold high-level representations of activity from multiple mechanosensory modalities, multiple receptive field locations, or even higher order features such as those associated with movement direction, velocity, texture, shape, orientation, compliance, slip, and rolling [8,65,66,69,70]. A proportion of these multimodal neurons have even been found to reside within the spinal cord and brainstem nuclei as the first synaptic targets for afferent fibers emanating from the limbs [24,62,67,7073]. It has been recently shown in cats that cells of the cuneate nucleus encode high level information related to unique combinations of contact initiation/cessation, slip, and rolling contact [70]. Thus, even proximal neuronal networks in hierarchical somatosensory pathways may represent complex sensory information within their local neuronal population. It is therefore plausible that the limb-associated S1 cortex in rodents already holds representations of complex stimulus features within its single cell and population code similar to higher mammals. The non-linear differences in response strength to our stimuli, and differences in the cortical representation demonstrated by our 10 oscillation stimuli in comparison to each other and to their longer temporal duration equivalents, both support that mouse S1 cortex is not simple entrained by the stimulus frequency but is instead modulated by the frequency and length of the stimulus. Single cells within S1 barrel cortex have been shown to display tuning related to multi-whisker features such as center-surround feature extraction, angular tuning, and multi-whisker correlations [74], thereby lending further weight to the prediction that the limb-associated S1 cortex may also represent convergent multimodal stimulus features within the stimulus representations we have depicted here.

This study did not attempt to directly examine the contribution of specific mechanoreceptor populations in the limbs to the afferent signal generated by our square-wave stimuli and their corresponding cortical responses. While it is not possible to give specific predictions on how strongly each modality was represented within the afferent response and cortical activity, peripheral mechanoreceptors are known to have varied activation thresholds at a range of frequencies [75,76], and the overall pattern of evoked activity would therefore reflect mixed afferent signals generated by the stimuli in this study. Saturation of the calcium response for high frequency limb oscillation could potentially contribute to similarities in the percent of neurons responding (Fig 2E) and the average population response magnitude (Fig 3) to our high frequency stimuli. However, distinct patterns of cellular responses for neurons responsive to each of the high frequency stimuli (Fig 2G), and differences observed in the correlational map structure between different high frequency stimuli (Figs 5 and 6), suggest that the calcium response maintained sufficient fidelity to record distinct representations of stimulus frequency. Future studies could make use of measurement methods with higher temporal fidelity and transgenic animals expressing channelrhodopsins in genetically-identified modality specific afferents to further examine the contribution of particular modalities to the cortical response [23,62]. This study also made use of anesthetized animals and passive stimulation. Anesthesia has previously been shown to reduce the magnitude and spread of cortical activation from simple somatic stimuli [7779]. Anesthesia also reduces the potential contribution of corollary discharge and reafference due to voluntary action in modulating sensory input and cortical responses [80]. Somatosensory responses are known to be modulated by the relevance of stimuli to behavior and task performance [8186], and a combination of responses to artificial and simplified stimuli may not fully predict responses of a sensory system to complex naturalistic stimuli [8790]. Within the rodent barrel cortex, for instance, aperiodic stimulus trains associated with naturalistic conditions may have sufficient noise to modulate the response magnitude of cortical networks, especially at higher stimulus frequencies [91]. Furthermore, movement-related suppression of self-generated somatosensory activation uses thalamocortical mechanisms in mice to enhance selectivity for touch-related signals [92]. Although the square-wave stimuli in our study lack the aperiodic, broadband, and re-afferent nature of naturalistic stimuli, our results demonstrate that the limb-associated primary somatosensory cortex of mice differentially represents these distinct mechanical limb stimuli at the level of local neuronal networks in the S1 of anesthesized animals and serves to inform future studies about the relative differences in cortical responses expected between the various stimuli observed herein.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Visual example of the structural similarity (SSIM)-based method for trial-by-trial comparisons of correlational map similarity.

In this example depicting the stimulus-evoked correlation maps from an example animal in the cHL at 130um depth, the SSIM value and SSIM comparison image display greater similarity for within trials of 0.1s 100Hz (A) and within trials for 1s 100Hz (B). Comparisons between trials of stimuli with different frequency or temporal durations demonstrate less structural similarity and a lower SSIM value (C). To generate the SSIM charts seen in Figs 5 and 6 and 8 trials of each stimulus were compared for SSIM value within and between stimuli as shown in (D) (comparison between 4 trials of each shown here).

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Short duration, high frequency stimuli lead to differential cortical activity from long duration, low frequency stimuli.

(A) Example heat map matrices of the pairwise stimulus-evoked correlation coefficient between a population of 74 neurons within the cFL somatosensory cortex of one example animal at 160μm depth for 0.1s 100Hz, 0.05s 200Hz, 1s 3Hz, and 1s 10Hz stimuli. Structural similarity comparison of the maps depicts greater map similarity for within stimulus trial conditions than between stimulus trial comparisons (B). A significant effect of stimulus is observed in the percent of neurons responding (D) and in the neuron decay tau (F), but not in the neuron response amplitude (C) or the neuron AUC (E). (G) Color coded quantification chart displaying the percentage overlap between neuron populations responsive to each stimulus quantified for all animals (N = 10). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://osf.io/rhfqy/.

Funding Statement

IRW Alberta Innovates Health Solutions https://albertainnovates.ca Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca Canada Foundation for Innovation https://www.innovation.ca Province of Alberta Small Equipment Grants program MVB Canadian Institutes of Health Research https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Studentships.

References

  • 1.Winship IR, Murphy TH. In vivo calcium imaging reveals functional rewiring of single somatosensory neurons after stroke. J Neurosci. 2008;28: 6592–6606. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0622-08.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brown CE, Aminoltejari K, Erb H, Winship IR, Murphy TH. In Vivo Voltage-Sensitive Dye Imaging in Adult Mice Reveals That Somatosensory Maps Lost to Stroke Are Replaced over Weeks by New Structural and Functional Circuits with Prolonged Modes of Activation within Both the Peri-Infarct Zone and Distant Sites. J Neurosci. 2009;29: 1719–1734. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4249-08.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sigler A, Mohajerani MH, Murphy TH. Imaging rapid redistribution of sensory-evoked depolarization through existing cortical pathways after targeted stroke in mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106: 11759–11764. 10.1073/pnas.0812695106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sweetnam DA, Brown CE. Stroke induces long-lasting deficits in the temporal fidelity of sensory processing in the somatosensory cortex. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2013;33: 91–96. 10.1038/jcbfm.2012.135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ashby DM, LeDue J, Murphy TH, McGirr A. Peripheral Nerve Ligation Elicits Widespread Alterations in Cortical Sensory Evoked and Spontaneous Activity. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 15341. 10.1038/s41598-019-51811-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Winship IR, Murphy TH. Remapping the somatosensory cortex after stroke: insight from imaging the synapse to network. Neuroscientist. 2009;15: 507–524. 10.1177/1073858409333076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mountcastle VB. The Sensory Hand. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 2005. 10.1016/j.neures.2005.10.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Delhaye BP, Long KH, Bensmaia SJ. Neural Basis of Touch and Proprioception in Primate Cortex. Compr Physiol. 2018;8: 1575–1602. 10.1002/cphy.c170033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Adibi M. Whisker-Mediated Touch System in Rodents: From Neuron to Behavior. Front Syst Neurosci. 2019;13: 40. 10.3389/fnsys.2019.00040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Petersen CCH. Sensorimotor processing in the rodent barrel cortex. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2019;20: 533–546. 10.1038/s41583-019-0200-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Klein A, Sacrey L-AR, Whishaw IQ, Dunnett SB. The use of rodent skilled reaching as a translational model for investigating brain damage and disease. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2012;36: 1030–1042. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.12.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Balbinot G, Schuch CP, Jeffers MS, McDonald MW, Livingston-Thomas JM, Corbett D. Post-stroke kinematic analysis in rats reveals similar reaching abnormalities as humans. Scientific Reports. 2018;8: 8738. 10.1038/s41598-018-27101-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tutunculer B, Foffani G, Himes BT, Moxon KA. Structure of the excitatory receptive fields of infragranular forelimb neurons in the rat primary somatosensory cortex responding to touch. Cereb Cortex. 2006;16: 791–810. 10.1093/cercor/bhj023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Foffani G, Chapin JK, Moxon KA. Computational Role of Large Receptive Fields in the Primary Somatosensory Cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2008;100: 268–280. 10.1152/jn.01015.2007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Storchi R, Zippo AG, Caramenti GC, Valente M, Biella GEM. Predicting spike occurrence and neuronal responsiveness from LFPs in primary somatosensory cortex. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e35850. 10.1371/journal.pone.0035850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vardar B, Güçlü B. Effects of basal forebrain stimulation on the vibrotactile responses of neurons from the hindpaw representation in the rat SI cortex. Brain Struct Funct. 2020;225: 1761–1776. 10.1007/s00429-020-02091-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vardar B, Güçlü B. Non-NMDA receptor-mediated vibrotactile responses of neurons from the hindpaw representation in the rat SI cortex. Somatosens Mot Res. 2017;34: 189–203. 10.1080/08990220.2017.1390450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Morales-Botello ML, Aguilar J, Foffani G. Imaging the spatio-temporal dynamics of supragranular activity in the rat somatosensory cortex in response to stimulation of the paws. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e40174. 10.1371/journal.pone.0040174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Humanes-Valera D, Foffani G, Aguilar J. Increased cortical responses to forepaw stimuli immediately after peripheral deafferentation of hindpaw inputs. Sci Rep. 2014;4: 7278. 10.1038/srep07278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Park K, Liyanage AC, Koretsky AP, Pan Y, Du C. Optical imaging of stimulation-evoked cortical activity using GCaMP6f and jRGECO1a. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021;11: 998–1009. 10.21037/qims-20-921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mc Larney B, Hutter MA, Degtyaruk O, Deán-Ben XL, Razansky D. Monitoring of Stimulus Evoked Murine Somatosensory Cortex Hemodynamic Activity With Volumetric Multi-Spectral Optoacoustic Tomography. Front Neurosci. 2020;14: 536. 10.3389/fnins.2020.00536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schroeter A, Grandjean J, Schlegel F, Saab BJ, Rudin M. Contributions of structural connectivity and cerebrovascular parameters to functional magnetic resonance imaging signals in mice at rest and during sensory paw stimulation. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2017;37: 2368–2382. 10.1177/0271678X16666292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Prsa M, Morandell K, Cuenu G, Huber D. Feature-selective encoding of substrate vibrations in the forelimb somatosensory cortex. Nature. 2019;567: 384–388. 10.1038/s41586-019-1015-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Abraira VE, Ginty DD. The sensory neurons of touch. Neuron. 2013;79: 618–639. 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bolanowski SJ, Gescheider GA, Verrillo RT, Checkosky CM. Four channels mediate the mechanical aspects of touch. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;84: 1680–1694. 10.1121/1.397184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gescheider GA, Bolanowski SJ, Pope JV, Verrillo RT. A four-channel analysis of the tactile sensitivity of the fingertip: frequency selectivity, spatial summation, and temporal summation. Somatosens Mot Res. 2002;19: 114–124. 10.1080/08990220220131505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Johnson KO, Yoshioka T, Vega-Bermudez F. Tactile functions of mechanoreceptive afferents innervating the hand. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2000;17: 539–558. 10.1097/00004691-200011000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mountcastle VB, LaMotte RH, Carli G. Detection thresholds for stimuli in humans and monkeys: comparison with threshold events in mechanoreceptive afferent nerve fibers innervating the monkey hand. J Neurophysiol. 1972;35: 122–136. 10.1152/jn.1972.35.1.122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kerr JND, Greenberg D, Helmchen F. Imaging input and output of neocortical networks in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102: 14063–14068. 10.1073/pnas.0506029102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kerr JND, de Kock CPJ, Greenberg DS, Bruno RM, Sakmann B, Helmchen F. Spatial organization of neuronal population responses in layer 2/3 of rat barrel cortex. J Neurosci. 2007;27: 13316–13328. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2210-07.2007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ohki K, Chung S, Ch’ng YH, Kara P, Reid RC. Functional imaging with cellular resolution reveals precise micro-architecture in visual cortex. Nature. 2005;433: 597–603. 10.1038/nature03274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Stosiek C, Garaschuk O, Holthoff K, Konnerth A. In vivo two-photon calcium imaging of neuronal networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2003;100: 7319–7324. 10.1073/pnas.1232232100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Husson TR, Mallik AK, Zhang JX, Issa NP. Functional imaging of primary visual cortex using flavoprotein autofluorescence. J Neurosci. 2007;27: 8665–8675. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2156-07.2007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Michael N, Bischof H-J, Löwel S. Flavoprotein autofluorescence imaging of visual system activity in zebra finches and mice. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e85225. 10.1371/journal.pone.0085225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Reinert KC, Gao W, Chen G, Ebner TJ. Flavoprotein autofluorescence imaging in the cerebellar cortex in vivo. J Neurosci Res. 2007;85: 3221–3232. 10.1002/jnr.21348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shibuki K, Hishida R, Murakami H, Kudoh M, Kawaguchi T, Watanabe M, et al. Dynamic imaging of somatosensory cortical activity in the rat visualized by flavoprotein autofluorescence. J Physiol (Lond). 2003;549: 919–927. 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.040709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Weber B, Burger C, Wyss MT, von Schulthess GK, Scheffold F, Buck A. Optical imaging of the spatiotemporal dynamics of cerebral blood flow and oxidative metabolism in the rat barrel cortex. Eur J Neurosci. 2004;20: 2664–2670. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03735.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Winship IR, Plaa N, Murphy TH. Rapid astrocyte calcium signals correlate with neuronal activity and onset of the hemodynamic response in vivo. J Neurosci. 2007;27: 6268–6272. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4801-06.2007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Nimmerjahn A, Kirchhoff F, Kerr JND, Helmchen F. Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo. Nat Methods. 2004;1: 31–37. 10.1038/nmeth706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kerlin AM, Andermann ML, Berezovskii VK, Reid RC. Broadly tuned response properties of diverse inhibitory neuron subtypes in mouse visual cortex. Neuron. 2010;67: 858–871. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Schummers J, Yu H, Sur M. Tuned responses of astrocytes and their influence on hemodynamic signals in the visual cortex. Science. 2008;320: 1638–1643. 10.1126/science.1156120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Roth MM, Helmchen F, Kampa BM. Distinct functional properties of primary and posteromedial visual area of mouse neocortex. J Neurosci. 2012;32: 9716–9726. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0110-12.2012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jennrich RI. An Asymptotic |chi2 Test for the Equality of Two Correlation Matrices. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1970;65: 904–912. 10.2307/2284596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tada M, Takeuchi A, Hashizume M, Kitamura K, Kano M. A highly sensitive fluorescent indicator dye for calcium imaging of neural activity in vitro and in vivo. Eur J Neurosci. 2014;39: 1720–1728. 10.1111/ejn.12476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sabri MM, Adibi M, Arabzadeh E. Dynamics of Population Activity in Rat Sensory Cortex: Network Correlations Predict Anatomical Arrangement and Information Content. Front Neural Circuits. 2016;10: 49. 10.3389/fncir.2016.00049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kwon SE, Tsytsarev V, Erzurumlu RS, O’Connor DH. Organization of orientation-specific whisker deflection responses in layer 2/3 of mouse somatosensory cortex. Neuroscience. 2018;368: 46–56. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.07.067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Fassihi A, Akrami A, Pulecchi F, Schönfelder V, Diamond ME. Transformation of Perception from Sensory to Motor Cortex. Curr Biol. 2017;27: 1585–1596.e6. 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hayashi A, Yoshida T, Ohki K. Cell Type Specific Representation of Vibro-tactile Stimuli in the Mouse Primary Somatosensory Cortex. Front Neural Circuits. 2018;12. 10.3389/fncir.2018.00109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Cohen MR, Kohn A. Measuring and interpreting neuronal correlations. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14: 811–819. 10.1038/nn.2842 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kohn A, Coen-Cagli R, Kanitscheider I, Pouget A. Correlations and Neuronal Population Information. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2016;39: 237–256. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-070815-013851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Simoncelli EP, Olshausen BA. Natural image statistics and neural representation. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;24: 1193–1216. 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.1193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Barlow H. Redundancy reduction revisited. Network. 2001;12: 241–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Pnevmatikakis EA, Soudry D, Gao Y, Machado TA, Merel J, Pfau D, et al. Simultaneous Denoising, Deconvolution, and Demixing of Calcium Imaging Data. Neuron. 2016;89: 285–299. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Pachitariu M, Stringer C, Harris KD. Robustness of Spike Deconvolution for Neuronal Calcium Imaging. J Neurosci. 2018;38: 7976–7985. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3339-17.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Friedrich J, Zhou P, Paninski L. Fast online deconvolution of calcium imaging data. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017;13: e1005423. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Dana H, Sun Y, Mohar B, Hulse BK, Kerlin AM, Hasseman JP, et al. High-performance calcium sensors for imaging activity in neuronal populations and microcompartments. Nature Methods. 2019;16: 649–657. 10.1038/s41592-019-0435-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Knöpfel T, Song C. Optical voltage imaging in neurons: moving from technology development to practical tool. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2019;20: 719–727. 10.1038/s41583-019-0231-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Owens DM, Lumpkin EA. Diversification and specialization of touch receptors in skin. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2014;4. 10.1101/cshperspect.a013656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Walsh CM, Bautista DM, Lumpkin EA. Mammalian touch catches up. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015;34: 133–139. 10.1016/j.conb.2015.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zimmerman A, Bai L, Ginty DD. The gentle touch receptors of mammalian skin. Science. 2014;346: 950–954. 10.1126/science.1254229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lesniak DR, Marshall KL, Wellnitz SA, Jenkins BA, Baba Y, Rasband MN, et al. Computation identifies structural features that govern neuronal firing properties in slowly adapting touch receptors. Elife. 2014;3: e01488. 10.7554/eLife.01488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Li L, Rutlin M, Abraira VE, Cassidy C, Kus L, Gong S, et al. The functional organization of cutaneous low-threshold mechanosensory neurons. Cell. 2011;147: 1615–1627. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.11.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Brunton E, Blau CW, Nazarpour K. Separability of neural responses to standardised mechanical stimulation of limbs. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 11138. 10.1038/s41598-017-11349-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Goodwin AW, Wheat HE. Sensory signals in neural populations underlying tactile perception and manipulation. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004;27: 53–77. 10.1146/annurev.neuro.26.041002.131032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Doetsch GS. Patterns in the brain: Neuronal population coding in the somatosensory system. Physiology & behavior. 2000;69: 187–201. 10.1016/s0031-9384(00)00201-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hayward V. Is there a “plenhaptic” function? Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B, Biol Sci. 2011;366: 3115–3122. 10.1098/rstb.2011.0150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Bui TV, Stifani N, Panek I, Farah C. Genetically identified spinal interneurons integrating tactile afferents for motor control. J Neurophysiol. 2015;114: 3050–3063. 10.1152/jn.00522.2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Pei Y-C, Denchev PV, Hsiao SS, Craig JC, Bensmaia SJ. Convergence of submodality-specific input onto neurons in primary somatosensory cortex. J Neurophysiol. 2009;102: 1843–1853. 10.1152/jn.00235.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Saal HP, Bensmaia SJ. Touch is a team effort: interplay of submodalities in cutaneous sensibility. Trends Neurosci. 2014;37: 689–697. 10.1016/j.tins.2014.08.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Jörntell H, Bengtsson F, Geborek P, Spanne A, Terekhov AV, Hayward V. Segregation of tactile input features in neurons of the cuneate nucleus. Neuron. 2014;83: 1444–1452. 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.07.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Johansson RS, Flanagan JR. Coding and use of tactile signals from the fingertips in object manipulation tasks. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10: 345–359. 10.1038/nrn2621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kim SS, Gomez-Ramirez M, Thakur PH, Hsiao SS. Multimodal Interactions between Proprioceptive and Cutaneous Signals in Primary Somatosensory Cortex. Neuron. 2015;86: 555–566. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.03.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Shishido S-I, Toda T. Temporal Patterns of Individual Neuronal Firing in Rat Dorsal Column Nuclei Provide Information Required for Somatosensory Discrimination. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2017;243: 115–126. 10.1620/tjem.243.115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Estebanez L, Férézou I, Ego-Stengel V, Shulz DE. Representation of tactile scenes in the rodent barrel cortex. Neuroscience. 2018;368: 81–94. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.08.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Muniak MA, Ray S, Hsiao SS, Dammann JF, Bensmaia SJ. The Neural Coding of Stimulus Intensity: Linking the Population Response of Mechanoreceptive Afferents with Psychophysical Behavior. Journal of Neuroscience. 2007;27: 11687–11699. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1486-07.2007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Bensmaia SJ. Tactile intensity and population codes. Behav Brain Res. 2008;190: 165–173. 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.02.044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Chen LM, Friedman RM, Roe AW. Optical imaging of SI topography in anesthetized and awake squirrel monkeys. J Neurosci. 2005;25: 7648–7659. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1990-05.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Chapin JK, Lin CS. Mapping the body representation in the SI cortex of anesthetized and awake rats. J Comp Neurol. 1984;229: 199–213. 10.1002/cne.902290206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Lissek T, Obenhaus HA, Ditzel DAW, Nagai T, Miyawaki A, Sprengel R, et al. General Anesthetic Conditions Induce Network Synchrony and Disrupt Sensory Processing in the Cortex. Front Cell Neurosci. 2016;10: 64. 10.3389/fncel.2016.00064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Crapse TB, Sommer MA. Corollary discharge across the animal kingdom. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9: 587–600. 10.1038/nrn2457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Dionne JK, Legon W, Staines WR. Crossmodal influences on early somatosensory processing: interaction of vision, touch, and task-relevance. Exp Brain Res. 2013;226: 503–512. 10.1007/s00221-013-3462-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Johansen-Berg H, Christensen V, Woolrich M, Matthews PM. Attention to touch modulates activity in both primary and secondary somatosensory areas. Neuroreport. 2000;11: 1237–1241. 10.1097/00001756-200004270-00019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Nelson AJ, Staines WR, Graham SJ, McIlroy WE. Activation in SI and SII: the influence of vibrotactile amplitude during passive and task-relevant stimulation. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004;19: 174–184. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Staines WR, Graham SJ, Black SE, McIlroy WE. Task-relevant modulation of contralateral and ipsilateral primary somatosensory cortex and the role of a prefrontal-cortical sensory gating system. Neuroimage. 2002;15: 190–199. 10.1006/nimg.2001.0953 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Gomez-Ramirez M, Hysaj K, Niebur E. Neural mechanisms of selective attention in the somatosensory system. J Neurophysiol. 2016;116: 1218–1231. 10.1152/jn.00637.2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Scaglione A, Foffani G, Moxon KA. Spike count, spike timing and temporal information in the cortex of awake, freely moving rats. J Neural Eng. 2014;11: 046022. 10.1088/1741-2560/11/4/046022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Kayser C, Körding KP, König P. Processing of complex stimuli and natural scenes in the visual cortex. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004;14: 468–473. 10.1016/j.conb.2004.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Lehky SR, Sejnowski TJ, Desimone R. Predicting responses of nonlinear neurons in monkey striate cortex to complex patterns. J Neurosci. 1992;12: 3568–3581. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-09-03568.1992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Meyer AF, Williamson RS, Linden JF, Sahani M. Models of Neuronal Stimulus-Response Functions: Elaboration, Estimation, and Evaluation. Front Syst Neurosci. 2016;10: 109. 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Sadagopan S, Wang X. Nonlinear Spectrotemporal Interactions Underlying Selectivity for Complex Sounds in Auditory Cortex. J Neurosci. 2009;29: 11192–11202. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1286-09.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Lak A, Arabzadeh E, Diamond ME. Enhanced response of neurons in rat somatosensory cortex to stimuli containing temporal noise. Cereb Cortex. 2008;18: 1085–1093. 10.1093/cercor/bhm144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Yu J, Gutnisky DA, Hires SA, Svoboda K. Layer 4 fast-spiking interneurons filter thalamocortical signals during active somatosensation. Nat Neurosci. 2016;19: 1647–1657. 10.1038/nn.4412 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gennady S Cymbalyuk

16 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-21079

Distinct patterns of activity in individual cortical neurons and local networks in primary somatosensory cortex of mice evoked by mechanical limb stimulation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Winship,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript should be seriously revised to provide details and justify some applied methods, address questions regarding statistical analysis, and discuss results in the context of recent publications to address the reviewers' concerns:

These results are not all entirely novel and the authors do not convincingly highlight their importance. The reader is left wondering what exactly this paper tries to convey about cortical coding of somatosensory stimuli.

1. Why do the authors use square wave stimuli instead of pure sinusoids? Sinusoidal stimuli were used in almost all seminal studies on vibrotactile neural coding in the somatosensory periphery and cortex. This therefore makes it problematic to compare the author’s results to those of previous studies. Also, square wave stimuli have harmonics and it is therefore misleading to label a stimulus with a single frequency value (e.g. 300 Hz).

2. It should be discussed how used artificial stimuli are correlated with native ones. For example, it is not clear how physiological are high frequency stimulation at 100, 200, and particularly 300 Hz for the skin of mice? Are rapidly adapted receptors in the skin suitable for discrimination these high frequency stimuli?

3. A recent study by Prsa et al.  (Nature 2019) has performed a similar set of very thorough experiments with regards to the mapping of S1 neurons to forelimb vibrations. While the present manuscript offers data in a slightly different frequency range (3-300 Hz as compared to Prsa et al. ~100Hz – 1kHz) and combines both forelimb and hindlimb stimulation, the authors do little to highlight these differences to emphasize the advance of the present work. Moreover, the present work is done in anesthetized animals under urethane anesthesia whereas Prsa et al. report responses from awake behaving animals; cortical responses are likely heavily impacted by anesthesia, making the interpretability of the stimulus-response properties of the neurons reported here a challenge.

4.     The analysis of single cell tuning to frequency would benefit from being expanded to better support claim 1) in the babstract. The authors declare a cell to be “responding” or “not responding” to a given frequency based on a threshold instead of reporting complete tuning curves to all frequencies. For example, are some neurons tuned to a specific frequency, but have wide tuning curves (i.e., have small but significant responses to frequencies near the preferred frequency) whereas others have narrow tuning bands (i.e,. respond robustly to only one frequency?). Are the neurons that respond to multiple frequencies simply thresholded (i.e., they respond similarly to all stimulations above a given frequency).

a.     The data in Fig 2C are not convincing of an example neuron that responds specifically to a single frequency, and draws into question the robustness of the thresholding approach. Showing tuning curves and parameterizing those tuning curves (preferred frequency and modulation depth) would be preferable.

5.     The correlation matrix analyses are confounded by the fact that the network is overall more active during higher frequency stimulations and thus this analysis is overly complicated for the result that is being shown. The population is more active during high-frequency stimulations, forcing correlations between neurons to be higher during high-frequency stimulations. If some neurons are not recruited by low frequency stimuli, but are for high frequency stimuli, the structure of the correlation map will necessarily change. It is unclear what is gained from the correlation maps over reporting the number/identity of recruited neurons at each frequency, and the latter would be more intuitive. Clustering the correlation matrices and showing that neurons belong to different clusters for different stimulations, or showing that hindlimb/forelimb populations drop out may help bring relevance to the correlation maps.

6. Regarding the stimulus-evoked pair-wise correlation analysis, the authors should carry out a randomization test where they shuffle the stimulus timings and repeat the analysis over a large number of iterations (>1000). The correlation coefficients obtained with the non-shuffled data should then be compared to the confidence intervals of the shuffled data to test for significance. Indeed, the obtained correlation data might have nothing to do with the stimulus but be intrinsic to the neural network or possibly be even noise correlations.

7.     The hindlimb and forelimb populations could be analyzed separately to better characterize each population. For example, perhaps hindlimb neurons are responsive to all frequencies, but forelimb neurons are only responsive to high frequencies. This means that the increase in numbers of neurons active during high frequency stimulation is simply due to the forelimb being sensitive only to high frequencies. Moreover, we might expect the hindlimb neurons to be correlated with one another over the forelimb and vice versa.  

8.     The energy of the stimuli are not properly matched (100Hz stimulations have much more energy than 3Hz stimulations). The authors identify this possible confound that higher frequency simply contain “more stimulation” than lower frequency stimuli. To address this the authors present high frequency, short duration stimuli, but do not compare those to the low frequency, long duration responses. Comparing the responses between short high frequency and long low frequency stimulations would be welcome.

9. The authors claim that all their vibratory stimuli had an amplitude of 1 mm. How exactly was this calibrated? A thorough description of the measurement apparatus and procedure is missing. This is key because it is crucial to demonstrate that the vibration amplitude did not vary across different frequencies. The limb load might not be equally displaced by a 300 Hz vibration than by a 3 Hz vibration. Why was such a high amplitude chosen? Previous studies in rodents used an order of magnitude smaller amplitudes (in the um range) which evoked highly reliable responses and is already well beyond their perceptual thresholds. It therefore seems highly plausible that the 1 mm oscillations evoked highly saturated neural responses, which are definitely not in the natural perceptual range of mice.

10. Very little technical detail is given about the stimulation apparatus and procedure (p.5, lines 112 and 113). How big is the actuator and its end point? How was it driven? At what sampling rate? With what amplifier? Was a sensor used to measure the actual movement that was produced? How was the stimulus integrity assured? Was it consistent across several repetitions?

11. A threshold criterion was used to identify responsive neurons. Why was this preferred to statistical tests? Was this analysis done on the average traces or on every single trial? The authors claim that this procedure was “optimal for separating responsive neurons from noise”, but based on what criteria?

12. Two-photon image processing and determination of responding neurons, Line#165:

Authors indicate that threshold response criteria for Ca2+ fluorescence is 3X increase of standard deviation of fluorescence. However, in Results Line 270 they use another criteria “strongly responsive” neurons in which Ca2+ transient of ΔF/F0 > 10%. The approach for identification of responses should be clarified in Method section.

Major concerns:

- Page 3, lines 62-65: this statement should be nuanced. A limb flexion through a single axis of motion certainly does not recruit all mechanoreceptor types and certainly not equally (it will preferentially recruit proprioceptors).

- Page 3, lines 65-70: it is not clear what the point of this sentence is. What do the authors try to convey here and how does it relate to their experiments?

- The authors use “limb movement” and “limb vibration” interchangeably throughout the manuscript. These are fundamentally different stimuli with each having its own specialized mechanoreceptors (Meissner and Pacinian corpuscles transduce vibrations and proprioceptors transduce limb movement).

- Page 6, line 123: can you give the precise coordinates of the imaging sites and how do these compare to those previously reported for the location of the forelimb and hindlimb S1?

- Page 6, line 132: why is the impedance of the pipette relevant for injections?

- Page 7, line 153: the authors should explain what “photon-shot noise” is.

- Page 8, line 169: a detailed description of the AUC analysis is missing. What exactly is being classified here? What does “half-width” refer to? Where is time-to-peak analyzed in the results?

- Page 8, lines 179-181: was the data z-scored prior to calculating the correlation coefficients?

- Page 9, line 189: a better description of the “seed-based” analysis is needed.

- The stimulus evoked trace in figure 2C does not appear to be an actual calcium transient, but looks more like noise fluctuations. Is this the best available example for a 10 Hz selective neuron? Is this bump that appears in the average trace only due to a single trial or does it reliably appear across multiple trials?

- In general, the authors cannot rule out frequency selective responses because of the limited number of frequencies tested. We do not know what happens beyond 300 Hz.

- Page 12, lines 266-267: could this be due to saturated Ca responses? In general, why is the decay of the calcium transient relevant? What does it reflect exactly?

- Page 14, lines 299-300: or could it be due to the fact that nearby neurons have more similar expression levels?

- Page 14, lines 308-310: how does this compare to analysing the pre- or post- stimulus baseline period and also is it significant when running a randomization test with shuffled data?

- Page 14, lines 312-313: could this simply be due to the fact that higher frequencies have stronger and more frequent responses and thus yield higher correlation coefficients? Was Z scoring performed?

- Page 15, lines 340-342: It is not clear what this means or implies.

- Page 16, lines 351-352: the authors compare 0.1 s and 0.05 s stimulus durations with 1 s durations (a 10 to 20 fold duration difference). Why such big differences and such short stimuli? A 50 ms vibration will hardly evoke any spikes.

- Page 16, lines 359-360: how do the authors explain this?

- In 2BC, labels for the frequency of stimulation would be helpful.

-     The analysis of the population dF/F (Fig 3A) does not provide much insight. While not incorrect, there is little gain in understanding of encoding properties by showing the population as a whole is more active when the authors have shown in the previous figure that the number of neurons recruited is increased for higher frequency stimuli.  The amplitude, decay time and AUC are all strongly related to each other, as calcium signals are subject to decay. It is unclear what the additional functional significance is of the AUC or decay time being different across stimulation frequencies.

-     The choice of a square wave pulse for the stimulation is a minor caveat, as the abrupt changes in limb direction at the onset and offset of the square wave will cause high frequency ringing/vibration of the limb that will depend on the intrinsic characteristics of the limb.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 31 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gennady Cymbalyuk, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, please provide methods of sacrifice in the Methods section of your manuscript.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In their study, Bandet et al. use calcium imaging of neuronal populations in the mouse somatosensory cortex to show that distinct vibrotactile stimuli are represented with distinct patterns of neuronal activation. They report that somatosensory cortex neurons distinguish between different frequencies of forelimb and hindlimb stimulation in the following manner:

- The number of neurons responding to high frequency (100 Hz, 200 Hz and 300 Hz) stimuli is greater than the number of neurons responding to low frequency (3 Hz and 10 Hz) stimuli (Fig. 1E).

- The response amplitude of neurons (i.e. size of calcium transients) is independent of stimulus frequency.

- High frequency stimuli evoke longer decays of calcium transients and AUC values, but these two measures do not scale linearly with frequency.

- Pair wise stimulus evoked correlations between neurons varied between different stimulus frequencies. Higher frequency stimuli had higher correlations.

- Longer duration stimuli evoke more consistent activity patterns than shorter stimuli.

These results are not all entirely novel and the authors do not convincingly highlight their importance. The reader is left wondering what exactly this paper tries to convey about cortical coding of somatosensory stimuli.

There are several important issues and questions that the authors should address. These are listed here below.

1. Why do the authors use square wave stimuli instead of pure sinusoids? Sinusoidal stimuli were used in almost all seminal studies on vibrotactile neural coding in the somatosensory periphery and cortex. This therefore makes it problematic to compare the author’s results to those of previous studies. Also, square wave stimuli have harmonics and it is therefore misleading to label a stimulus with a single frequency value (e.g. 300 Hz).

2. The authors claim that all their vibratory stimuli had an amplitude of 1 mm. How exactly was this calibrated? A thorough description of the measurement apparatus and procedure is missing. This is key because it is crucial to demonstrate that the vibration amplitude did not vary across different frequencies. The limb load might not be equally displaced by a 300 Hz vibration than by a 3 Hz vibration. Why was such a high amplitude chosen? Previous studies in rodents used an order of magnitude smaller amplitudes (in the um range) which evoked highly reliable responses and is already well beyond their perceptual thresholds. It therefore seems highly plausible that the 1 mm oscillations evoked highly saturated neural responses, which are definitely not in the natural perceptual range of mice.

3. Very little technical detail is given about the stimulation apparatus and procedure (p.5, lines 112 and 113). How big is the actuator and its end point? How was it driven? At what sampling rate? With what amplifier? Was a sensor used to measure the actual movement that was produced? How was the stimulus integrity assured? Was it consistent across several repetitions? Etc…

4. A threshold criterion was used to identify responsive neurons. Why was this preferred to statistical tests? Was this analysis done on the average traces or on every single trial? The authors claim that this procedure was “optimal for separating responsive neurons from noise”, but based on what criteria?

5. Regarding the stimulus-evoked pair-wise correlation analysis, the authors should carry out a randomization test where they shuffle the stimulus timings and repeat the analysis over a large number of iterations (>1000). The correlation coefficients obtained with the non-shuffled data should then be compared to the confidence intervals of the shuffled data to test for significance. Indeed, the obtained correlation data might have nothing to do with the stimulus but be intrinsic to the neural network or possibly be even noise correlations.

Additional comments/questions:

- Page 3, lines 62-65: this statement should be nuanced. A limb flexion through a single axis of motion certainly does not recruit all mechanoreceptor types and certainly not equally (it will preferentially recruit proprioceptors).

- Page 3, lines 65-70: it is not clear what the point of this sentence is. What do the authors try to convey here and how does it relate to their experiments?

- The authors use “limb movement” and “limb vibration” interchangeably throughout the manuscript. These are fundamentally different stimuli with each having its own specialized mechanoreceptors (Meissner and Pacinian corpuscles transduce vibrations and proprioceptors transduce limb movement).

- Page 6, line 123: can you give the precise coordinates of the imaging sites and how do these compare to those previously reported for the location of the forelimb and hindlimb S1?

- Page 6, line 132: why is the impedance of the pipette relevant for injections?

- Page 7, line 153: the authors should explain what “photon-shot noise” is.

- Page 8, line 169: a detailed description of the AUC analysis is missing. What exactly is being classified here? What does “half-width” refer to? Where is time-to-peak analyzed in the results?

- Page 8, lines 179-181: was the data z-scored prior to calculating the correlation coefficients?

- Page 9, line 189: a better description of the “seed-based” analysis is needed.

- The stimulus evoked trace in figure 2C does not appear to be an actual calcium transient, but looks more like noise fluctuations. Is this the best available example for a 10 Hz selective neuron? Is this bump that appears in the average trace only due to a single trial or does it reliably appear across multiple trials?

- In general, the authors cannot rule out frequency selective responses because of the limited number of frequencies tested. We do not know what happens beyond 300 Hz.

- Page 12, lines 266-267: could this be due to saturated Ca responses? In general, why is the decay of the calcium transient relevant? What does it reflect exactly?

- Page 14, lines 299-300: or could it be due to the fact that nearby neurons have more similar expression levels?

- Page 14, lines 308-310: how does this compare to analysing the pre- or post- stimulus baseline period and also is it significant when running a randomization test with shuffled data?

- Page 14, lines 312-313: could this simply be due to the fact that higher frequencies have stronger and more frequent responses and thus yield higher correlation coefficients? Was Z scoring performed?

- Page 15, lines 340-342: It is not clear what this means or implies.

- Page 16, lines 351-352: the authors compare 0.1 s and 0.05 s stimulus durations with 1 s durations (a 10 to 20 fold duration difference). Why such big differences and such short stimuli? A 50 ms vibration will hardly evoke any spikes.

- Page 16, lines 359-360: how do the authors explain this?

Reviewer #2: The paper entitled: “Distinct patterns of activity in individual cortical neurons and local networks in primary somatosensory cortex of mice evoked by mechanical limb stimulation” is dedicated to the very important problem of encoding at the level of the somatosensory cortex. This work is important because for now mechanisms and principles of specificity and qualitative separation of sensory signals are not elucidated enough. Authors used very sensitive method of two-photon microscopy for visualization of neuronal activation in vivo for study of cortical networks involved in encoding of mechanical stimuli. Approach is appropriate, well developed data collection and statistical analyses makes the results rigorous and argumentative.

The manuscript could be accepted for publication.

I just would like to add few minor comments, which, in my opinion, could improve it.

1). Two-photon image processing and determination of responding neurons, Line#165:

Authors indicate that threshold response criteria for Ca2+ fluorescence is 3X increase of standard deviation of fluorescence. However, in Results Line 270 they use another criteria “strongly responsive” neurons in which Ca2+ transient of ΔF/F0 > 10%. The approach for identification of responses should be clarified in Method section.

2). It should be discussed how used artificial stimuli are correlated with native ones. For example, it is not clear how physiological are high frequency stimulation at 100, 200, and particularly 300 Hz for the skin of mice? Are rapidly adapted receptors in the skin suitable for discrimination these high frequency stimuli?

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, Bandet et al. characterize the response properties of S1 cortical neurons to mechanical vibration of the forelimb and hindlimb using Ca2+ imaging. Unfortunately, a recent study by Prsa et al. (Nature 2019) has performed a similar set of very thorough experiments with regards to the mapping of S1 neurons to forelimb vibrations. While the present manuscript offers data in a slightly different frequency range (3-300 Hz as compared to Prsa et al. ~100Hz – 1kHz) and combines both forelimb and hindlimb stimulation, the authors do little to highlight these differences to emphasize the advance of the present work. Moreover, the present work is done in anesthetized animals under urethane anesthesia whereas Prsa et al. report responses from awake behaving animals; cortical responses are likely heavily impacted by anesthesia, making the interpretability of the stimulus-response properties of the neurons reported here a challenge. That said, the data collected are of high quality and technically sound, and the manuscript could be improved with some revisions to the analyses listed below.

The abstract states the main results to be: 1) S1 neurons fall into 2 categories: frequency specific responses, or responsive to multiple frequencies 2) High frequency stimulation recruits more of the population, both in number of cells recruited and the magnitude of each cell’s activity. 3) Taken as a population, the pattern of activities are unique for individual stimuli.

Major concerns:

1) The analysis of single cell tuning to frequency would benefit from being expanded to better support claim 1) in the babstract. The authors declare a cell to be “responding” or “not responding” to a given frequency based on a threshold instead of reporting complete tuning curves to all frequencies. For example, are some neurons tuned to a specific frequency, but have wide tuning curves (i.e., have small but significant responses to frequencies near the preferred frequency) whereas others have narrow tuning bands (i.e,. respond robustly to only one frequency?). Are the neurons that respond to multiple frequencies simply thresholded (i.e., they respond similarly to all stimulations above a given frequency).

a. The data in Fig 2C are not convincing of an example neuron that responds specifically to a single frequency, and draws into question the robustness of the thresholding approach. Showing tuning curves and parameterizing those tuning curves (preferred frequency and modulation depth) would be preferable.

2) The correlation matrix analyses are confounded by the fact that the network is overall more active during higher frequency stimulations and thus this analysis is overly complicated for the result that is being shown. The population is more active during high-frequency stimulations, forcing correlations between neurons to be higher during high-frequency stimulations. If some neurons are not recruited by low frequency stimuli, but are for high frequency stimuli, the structure of the correlation map will necessarily change. It is unclear what is gained from the correlation maps over reporting the number/identity of recruited neurons at each frequency, and the latter would be more intuitive. Clustering the correlation matrices and showing that neurons belong to different clusters for different stimulations, or showing that hindlimb/forelimb populations drop out may help bring relevance to the correlation maps.

3) The hindlimb and forelimb populations could be analyzed separately to better characterize each population. For example, perhaps hindlimb neurons are responsive to all frequencies, but forelimb neurons are only responsive to high frequencies. This means that the increase in numbers of neurons active during high frequency stimulation is simply due to the forelimb being sensitive only to high frequencies. Moreover, we might expect the hindlimb neurons to be correlated with one another over the forelimb and vice versa.

4) The energy of the stimuli are not properly matched (100Hz stimulations have much more energy than 3Hz stimulations). The authors identify this possible confound that higher frequency simply contain “more stimulation” than lower frequency stimuli. To address this the authors present high frequency, short duration stimuli, but do not compare those to the low frequency, long duration responses. Comparing the responses between short high frequency and long low frequency stimulations would be welcome.

Minor concerns:

1) In 2BC, labels for the frequency of stimulation would be helpful.

2) The analysis of the population dF/F (Fig 3A) does not provide much insight. While not incorrect, there is little gain in understanding of encoding properties by showing the population as a whole is more active when the authors have shown in the previous figure that the number of neurons recruited is increased for higher frequency stimuli. The amplitude, decay time and AUC are all strongly related to each other, as calcium signals are subject to decay. It is unclear what the additional functional significance is of the AUC or decay time being different across stimulation frequencies.

3) The choice of a square wave pulse for the stimulation is a minor caveat, as the abrupt changes in limb direction at the onset and offset of the square wave will cause high frequency ringing/vibration of the limb that will depend on the intrinsic characteristics of the limb.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0236684. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236684.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Dec 2020

We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments of our manuscript. Below, we address comments from all reviewers.

Comment: These results are not all entirely novel and the authors do not convincingly highlight their importance. The reader is left wondering what exactly this paper tries to convey about cortical coding of somatosensory stimuli.

Response: This study does not aim to define cortical coding of any particular somatosensory modality or specific aspects of individual stimuli. Instead, our data demonstrate that complex sensory information resulting from the mixed activation of overlapping somatosensory modalities during an artificial square-wave mechanical stimulus can still be differentially represented within the somatosensory cortex of mice. While the square wave mechanical stimulus is not a naturalistic stimulus, different frequencies of stimulation contain overlapping information. Moreover, characterization of the distinct patterns of neural activity elicited by such stimuli is of importance as these forms of square-wave stimulation are used in multiple fields outside of the study of sensory coding, such as in the observation of cortical recovery from damage or disease. We have amended the abstract as follows to highlight this:

Artificial forms of mechanical limb stimulation are used within multiple fields of study to determine the level of cortical excitability and to map the trajectory of neuronal recovery from cortical damage or disease. Square-wave mechanical or electrical stimuli are often used in these studies despite having no clear naturalistic equivalent. To distinguish between somatic stimuli, the primary somatosensory cortex should process dissimilar stimuli with distinct patterns of activity, but must also be able to represent distinct but overlapping stimuli with unique patterns of activity. Here, flavoprotein autofluorescence imaging was used to map the somatosensory cortex of anaesthetized C57BL/6 mice, and in vivo two-photon Ca2+ imaging was used to define patterns of neuronal activation during mechanical square-wave stimulation of the contralateral forelimb or hindlimb at various frequencies (3, 10, 100, 200, and 300 Hz). The data revealed that neurons within the limb associated somatosensory cortex responding to various frequencies of square-wave stimuli exhibit stimulus-specific patterns of activity. Subsets of neurons were found to have sensory-evoked activity that is either primarily responsive to single stimulus frequencies or broadly responsive to multiple frequencies of limb stimulation. High frequency stimuli were shown to elicit more population activity, with a greater percentage of the population responding and greater percentage of cells with high amplitude responses. Stimulus-evoked cell-cell correlations within these neuronal networks varied as a function of frequency of stimulation, such that each stimulus elicited a distinct pattern that was more consistent across multiple trials of the same stimulus compared to trials at different frequencies of stimulation. The variation in cortical response to different square-wave stimuli can thus be represented by the population pattern of supra-threshold Ca2+ transients, the magnitude and temporal properties of the evoked activity, and the structure of the stimulus-evoked correlation between neurons.

Comment: 1. Why do the authors use square wave stimuli instead of pure sinusoids? Sinusoidal stimuli were used in almost all seminal studies on vibrotactile neural coding in the somatosensory periphery and cortex. This therefore makes it problematic to compare the author’s results to those of previous studies. Also, square wave stimuli have harmonics and it is therefore misleading to label a stimulus with a single frequency value (e.g. 300 Hz).

Response: The square-wave stimuli using piezoelectric bending actuators under study have been used in multiple fields outside of the study of sensory coding. As the cortical response to square-wave stimuli used within these previous studies has not been characterized, questions remain on the magnitude of cortical responses expected from mechanical stimuli of this type, whether the somatosensory cortex can differentially respond to these stimuli, and if cortical responses to these stimuli is altered with cortical damage or disease. We agree with the reviewer that the results herein are not directly comparable to those of previous studies using sinusoidal stimuli nor to experimental studies utilizing awake behaving animals. It is however of importance to determine whether the square-wave stimuli used herein are a form of stimulation that the somatosensory cortex can differentially encode despite having no naturalistic equivalents. We have amended text in the introduction as follows:

A better understanding of how the somatosensory system responds to artificial forms of mechanical stimuli, and can distinguish between distinct forms of these stimuli, is important in interpreting studies that use these stimuli as measures of cortical excitability and plastic changes during disease or after injury. Whereas considerable literature exists for somatosensation within the healthy brain in non-human primates (for review, see [1,2]), literature on the somatosensory system of rodents is more limited. Given that rodents are the most prominent animal model used to study reaching and upper limb use and disability[3], it is important to understand how different forms of somatic and movement related stimuli used in rodent research are processed in the rodent somatosensory cortex. Most current research on the limb-associated somatosensory cortex in rodents utilize artificial forms of mechanical[4–7] or electrical stimuli[8,9] to assess sensory-evoked responses using electrophysiology of individual cells or aggregate responses from large cortical regions. Unfortunately, stimulus parameters used in these studies often vary from one study to the next, and few studies offer well defined rationale for their choice of stimuli, thereby making comparisons and interpretation across studies more challenging. Notably, artificial stimuli used for rodent research that may be thought of as relatively simple in comparison to naturalistic stimuli or movements, such as limb oscillation through a single axis of motion, still likely result in the generation of complex multimodal sensory information in the periphery. These multimodal signals may arise from activation of mechanoreceptors at the stimulator attachment site, the propagation of vibration at the fundamental and harmonic frequencies to distal Pacinian corpuscles closely associated with joints and bones[10], the activation of proprioceptive receptors within the muscles and joints, and to a large potential array of signals arising due to deflections of hair follicle associated mechanoreceptors (for review, see [11]). Although particular subsets of cutaneous and proprioceptive mechanoreceptors have long been known in non-human primates to be tuned to characteristics such as stimulus intensity, frequency and receptive field location[1,2,12–15], the harmonics resulting from square-wave oscillation of the entire forelimb or hindlimb of mice would likely elicit highly mixed activity in mechanoreceptor populations, with weighted preference to mechanoreceptor populations most sensitive to the particular frequencies and biomechanics of the stimulus.

Comment: 2. It should be discussed how used artificial stimuli are correlated with native ones. For example, it is not clear how physiological are high frequency stimulation at 100, 200, and particularly 300 Hz for the skin of mice? Are rapidly adapted receptors in the skin suitable for discrimination these high frequency stimuli?

Response: The square-wave stimuli used in this study do not have a closely related equivalent in nature, however they are highly multimodal due to their large magnitude and method of attachment to the limb. The mechanical bending actuators used in this study shakes the entire limb of the mouse at a supraphysical level (>170um oscillation), and would therefore activate not only the exquisitely sensitive Pacinian corpuscles closely associated with the bones and sparsely in the phalanges in mice, but also the slowly adapting and rapidly adapting receptors found at the stimulator attachment site, proprioceptive receptors associated with the muscles and joints, as well as slowly and rapidly adapting receptors associated with hair follicles of the upper arm and shoulder. We can not define the contribution of each of these receptor types within this study, as indicated within the discussion. The premise of the paper is that the somatosensory cortex is able to differentially represent the stimuli despite the supraphysical stimulus level and mixed receptor activation, and the importance in the relative level of cortical activity elicited by each of the stimuli in informing future research that makes use of similar forms of mechanical stimulation under similar experimental conditions. This is now more clearly indicated within the introduction:

A better understanding of how the somatosensory system responds to artificial forms of mechanical stimuli, and can distinguish between distinct forms of these stimuli, is important in interpreting studies that use these stimuli as measures of cortical excitability and plastic changes during disease or after injury. Whereas considerable literature exists for somatosensation within the healthy brain in non-human primates (for review, see [1,2]), literature on the somatosensory system of rodents is more limited. Given that rodents are the most prominent animal model used to study reaching and upper limb use and disability[3], it is important to understand how different forms of somatic and movement related stimuli used in rodent research are processed in the rodent somatosensory cortex. Most current research on the limb-associated somatosensory cortex in rodents utilize artificial forms of mechanical[4–7] or electrical stimuli[8,9] to assess sensory-evoked responses using electrophysiology of individual cells or aggregate responses from large cortical regions. Unfortunately, stimulus parameters used in these studies often vary from one study to the next, and few studies offer well defined rationale for their choice of stimuli, thereby making comparisons and interpretation across studies more challenging. Notably, artificial stimuli used for rodent research that may be thought of as relatively simple in comparison to naturalistic stimuli or movements, such as limb oscillation through a single axis of motion, still likely result in the generation of complex multimodal sensory information in the periphery. These multimodal signals may arise from activation of mechanoreceptors at the stimulator attachment site, the propagation of vibration at the fundamental and harmonic frequencies to distal Pacinian corpuscles closely associated with joints and bones[10], the activation of proprioceptive receptors within the muscles and joints, and to a large potential array of signals arising due to deflections of hair follicle associated mechanoreceptors (for review, see [11]). Although particular subsets of cutaneous and proprioceptive mechanoreceptors have long been known in non-human primates to be tuned to characteristics such as stimulus intensity, frequency and receptive field location[1,2,12–15], the harmonics resulting from square-wave oscillation of the entire forelimb or hindlimb of mice would likely elicit highly mixed activity in mechanoreceptor populations, with weighted preference to mechanoreceptor populations most sensitive to the particular frequencies and biomechanics of the stimulus.

Comment: 3. A recent study by Prsa et al. (Nature 2019) has performed a similar set of very thorough experiments with regards to the mapping of S1 neurons to forelimb vibrations. While the present manuscript offers data in a slightly different frequency range (3-300 Hz as compared to Prsa et al. ~100Hz – 1kHz) and combines both forelimb and hindlimb stimulation, the authors do little to highlight these differences to emphasize the advance of the present work. Moreover, the present work is done in anesthetized animals under urethane anesthesia whereas Prsa et al. report responses from awake behaving animals; cortical responses are likely heavily impacted by anesthesia, making the interpretability of the stimulus-response properties of the neurons reported here a challenge.

Response: The recent study by Prsa et al., 2019 is a true tour-de-force in disseminating cortical responses to high frequency stimuli. Our study does not seek to directly expand on their work, but instead offers a characterization of how S1 neurons respond to artificial square-wave oscillations of the entire forelimb or hindlimb. We agree with the reviewer that the use of anesthetized animals is a limitation that limits the interpretation of the results primarily to other studies using a similar set of experimental conditions. Note that this study does not seek to define somatosensory encoding within naturalistic environments, but is instead a characterization of cortical responses to a range of square-wave stimuli that may be used in other studies examining somatosensory recovery following CNS perturbation and/or injury. It is therefore not fundamental insights into the nature of sensory encoding of tactile stimuli that is characterized within this manuscript, but rather the relative differences in the cortical activation to these stimuli and the ability of the anesthetized mouse somatosensory cortex to differentially respond to these square-wave stimuli that is of importance.

Comments: 4. The analysis of single cell tuning to frequency would benefit from being expanded to better support claim 1) in the abstract. The authors declare a cell to be “responding” or “not responding” to a given frequency based on a threshold instead of reporting complete tuning curves to all frequencies. For example, are some neurons tuned to a specific frequency, but have wide tuning curves (i.e., have small but significant responses to frequencies near the preferred frequency) whereas others have narrow tuning bands (i.e,. respond robustly to only one frequency?). Are the neurons that respond to multiple frequencies simply thresholded (i.e., they respond similarly to all stimulations above a given frequency).

AND

a. The data in Fig 2C are not convincing of an example neuron that responds specifically to a single frequency, and draws into question the robustness of the thresholding approach. Showing tuning curves and parameterizing those tuning curves (preferred frequency and modulation depth) would be preferable.

Response: We have amended Fig 2B,C with two example neurons that demonstrated above threshold responses to all stimuli with preferential activation by high frequency stimuli in B, and strongest activation by the 10Hz stimulus in C. The threshold criterion for a responding or non-responding neuron is necessary with OGB-1 calcium indicator to distinguish calcium transients from noise. Using the threshold criterion, approximately 33% of neurons respond only to a single stimulus (Fig 2F), with the majority of those belonging to the population of neurons responding to 100, 200, or 300Hz stimuli.

Comment: 5. The correlation matrix analyses are confounded by the fact that the network is overall more active during higher frequency stimulations and thus this analysis is overly complicated for the result that is being shown. The population is more active during high-frequency stimulations, forcing correlations between neurons to be higher during high-frequency stimulations. If some neurons are not recruited by low frequency stimuli, but are for high frequency stimuli, the structure of the correlation map will necessarily change. It is unclear what is gained from the correlation maps over reporting the number/identity of recruited neurons at each frequency, and the latter would be more intuitive. Clustering the correlation matrices and showing that neurons belong to different clusters for different stimulations, or showing that hindlimb/forelimb populations drop out may help bring relevance to the correlation maps.

Response: It is expected that higher frequency stimuli will lead to more cortical activity and therefore greater average correlation among the deltaF/Fo neurons within that population as a whole, as was observed in this study. We have added additional Fig 4c,d utilizing a stationary bootstrapping procedure to further illustrate that the significant pairwise correlations within a population varies as a function of the stimulus, a result that is further expanded on in Fig 5 & 6.

Comment: 6. Regarding the stimulus-evoked pair-wise correlation analysis, the authors should carry out a randomization test where they shuffle the stimulus timings and repeat the analysis over a large number of iterations (>1000). The correlation coefficients obtained with the non-shuffled data should then be compared to the confidence intervals of the shuffled data to test for significance. Indeed, the obtained correlation data might have nothing to do with the stimulus but be intrinsic to the neural network or possibly be even noise correlations.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have used a stationary bootstrap to create figure 4c,d that displays correlation values that were greater than the 97.5th percentile of the bootstrap. A 5 frame mean block length for the stationary bootstrap was used as this corresponds to a block length of 200ms for our 25Hz sampling rate, the minimum period of time between action potentials necessary to detect a calcium transient using OGB-1 (Tada et al., 2014). We have amended the following text within the manuscript:

Methods

A stationary bootstrapping procedure was further used as a test of the significance of the Pearson’s r calculated between the ΔF/Fo of each neuron pair. Within the stationary bootstrapping procedure, 10000 iterations were run and a mean block length of 5 frames (200ms) was used based on previous studies indicating the minimum period of time between action potentials necessary to detect a calcium transient using OGB-1[30]. Pairwise r values greater than the 97.5th percentile of the stationary bootstrap are indicated by light blue pixels (Fig 4c) and the correlation map replotted to show only those correlations meeting the bootstrap criteria (Fig 4D).

Results

We further confirmed the significance of these pairwise cross correlations by running a stationary bootstrapping procedure (see methods). Bootstrapping further supported that the pairwise comparisons meeting the bootstrapping criteria varied as a function of the stimulus (Fig 4c,d).

Comment: 7. The hindlimb and forelimb populations could be analyzed separately to better characterize each population. For example, perhaps hindlimb neurons are responsive to all frequencies, but forelimb neurons are only responsive to high frequencies. This means that the increase in numbers of neurons active during high frequency stimulation is simply due to the forelimb being sensitive only to high frequencies. Moreover, we might expect the hindlimb neurons to be correlated with one another over the forelimb and vice versa.

Response: Note that when hindlimb stimulation was applied we recorded only from the hindlimb somatosensory region. When the forelimb was stimulated, we recorded within the forelimb somatosensory region. Hindlimb and forelimb regions display the same patterns characterized within this manuscript, and were lumped together in analysis. Text within the methods has been added as follows:

While imaging the cHL somatosensory region mapped via FA imaging, only the cHL was stimulated. Likewise, only the cFL was stimulated during imaging of the cFL somatosensory region.

Comment: 8. The energy of the stimuli are not properly matched (100Hz stimulations have much more energy than 3Hz stimulations). The authors identify this possible confound that higher frequency simply contain “more stimulation” than lower frequency stimuli. To address this the authors present high frequency, short duration stimuli, but do not compare those to the low frequency, long duration responses. Comparing the responses between short high frequency and long low frequency stimulations would be welcome.

Response: We have added additional figure S2 and added additional results within the manuscript:

To further examine whether short, high frequency stimuli (0.1s 100Hz and 0.05s 200Hz) lead to different cortical responses than long, low frequency stimuli (1s 3Hz and 10Hz), we compared the stimulus-evoked correlational maps of these stimuli across multiple trials within the same animals (Fig S2a,b). A significant main effect was found for the cell-cell correlation map similarity for within stimuli comparisons to between stimuli comparisons (F(1.834,18.34) = 12.53, p = 0.0005), with multiple post-hoc comparisons indicating significantly greater map similarity for within stimulus trials as compared to between stimulus trial comparisons (Fig S2b). These stimuli were not differentiated by the mean neuron response amplitude of their responsive neural populations (F(1.811,16.30) = 1.353, p = 0.2835) (Fig S2c), nor the area under the curve of neural responses (F(1.912,17.21) = 2.372, p = 0.1248) (Fig S2e). A significant main effect was however seen for the percent of neurons responding (F(1.829,16.46) = 5.311, p = 0.0186) and for the neuron decay tau (F(2.517,22.66) = 7.051, p = 0.0025), with 1s 10Hz stimuli showing a higher percent neurons responding than 0.05s 200Hz and greater decay tau than 0.1s 100Hz and 0.05s 200Hz (Fig S2d,f). A low percent overlap in the responsive neuronal populations was observed between all stimuli (Fig S2g).

Comment: 9. The authors claim that all their vibratory stimuli had an amplitude of 1 mm. How exactly was this calibrated? A thorough description of the measurement apparatus and procedure is missing. This is key because it is crucial to demonstrate that the vibration amplitude did not vary across different frequencies. The limb load might not be equally displaced by a 300 Hz vibration than by a 3 Hz vibration. Why was such a high amplitude chosen? Previous studies in rodents used an order of magnitude smaller amplitudes (in the um range) which evoked highly reliable responses and is already well beyond their perceptual thresholds. It therefore seems highly plausible that the 1 mm oscillations evoked highly saturated neural responses, which are definitely not in the natural perceptual range of mice.

and

10. Very little technical detail is given about the stimulation apparatus and procedure (p.5, lines 112 and 113). How big is the actuator and its end point? How was it driven? At what sampling rate? With what amplifier? Was a sensor used to measure the actual movement that was produced? How was the stimulus integrity assured? Was it consistent across several repetitions?

Response: There was no calibration of the stimulator amplitude, and it therefore varied by frequency. A sensor was not used to measure the movement that was produced during these experiments, however we have subsequently imaged the limb oscillation and amended the text with further information on the stimulator used and the stimulus amplitude by frequency. The stimulus amplitude remained consistent across several repetitions of trials within each frequency, but differed between frequencies. We have amended the methods with the following:

Custom-made piezoceramic mechanical bending actuators were used to elicit vibrotactile limb stimulation during FA and Ca2+ imaging. The piezo bending actuators comprised a piezo element (Piezo Systems # Q220-A4-203YB) attached to an electrically insulated metal shaft holding a metal U-bend at its end. The palm of the mouse paw was placed within the U-bend, and the U-bend bent to shape to lightly secure the palm. The metal U-bend made contact across an area of approximately 3x1mm on the palmar and dorsal surface of the hand. Stimulators were driven with square-wave signals from an A-M Systems Model 2100 Isolated Pulse Stimulator. During stimulation, the entire limb underwent an oscillation with the following peak-peak amplitudes by frequency: 280um (3 & 10Hz), 335um (100Hz), 220um (200Hz), 170um (300Hz).

Comment: 11. A threshold criterion was used to identify responsive neurons. Why was this preferred to statistical tests? Was this analysis done on the average traces or on every single trial? The authors claim that this procedure was “optimal for separating responsive neurons from noise”, but based on what criteria?

Response: The threshold was set based on the signal to noise ratio of the recording. A threshold of three times the standard deviation of the baseline deltaF/Fo excludes noise from being identified as significant responses to the stimuli. This acts as a statistical and repeatable means to exclude fluorescent fluctuations that did not surpass the threshold signal-to-noise ratio for a period of time relevant to the imaging speed and OGB-1 indicator dynamics.

Comment: 12. Two-photon image processing and determination of responding neurons, Line#165: Authors indicate that threshold response criteria for Ca2+ fluorescence is 3X increase of standard deviation of fluorescence. However, in Results Line 270 they use another criteria “strongly responsive” neurons in which Ca2+ transient of ΔF/F0 > 10%. The approach for identification of responses should be clarified in Method section.

Response: We have amended the methods section to further clarify as follows:

A threshold criteria requiring the neuronal Ca2+ fluorescence to increase by 3X the standard deviation of the baseline period ΔF/Fo (baseline defined as 1s before stimulus onset), and remain above this criteria for 160ms (4 successive frames), was found to be optimal for separating responsive neurons from random noise fluctuations. The percentage of neurons that met an additional criteria of peak ΔF/ Fo greater than 10% were deemed “strongly responsive” neurons (Fig 3e) based on previous studies associating >10% increases in OGB-1 ΔF/ Fo with firing of multiple action potentials underlying the Ca2+ response[22].

Comment: - Page 3, lines 62-65: this statement should be nuanced. A limb flexion through a single axis of motion certainly does not recruit all mechanoreceptor types and certainly not equally (it will preferentially recruit proprioceptors).

and

- Page 3, lines 65-70: it is not clear what the point of this sentence is. What do the authors try to convey here and how does it relate to their experiments?

Response: We have amended the introduction to further clarify this section as follows:

Understanding how the somatosensory system responds to artificial forms of mechanical stimuli, and can distinguish between distinct forms of these stimuli, is important in interpreting studies that use these stimuli as measures of cortical excitability and plastic changes during disease or after injury. Whereas considerable literature exists for somatosensation within the healthy brain in non-human primates (for review, see [1,2]), literature on the somatosensory system of rodents is more limited. Given that rodents are the most prominent animal model used to study reaching and upper limb use and disability[3], it is important to understand how different forms of somatic and movement related stimuli used in rodent research are processed in the rodent somatosensory cortex. Most current research on the limb-associated somatosensory cortex in rodents utilize artificial forms of mechanical[4–7] or electrical stimuli[8,9] to assess sensory-evoked responses using electrophysiology of individual cells or aggregate responses from large cortical regions. Unfortunately, stimulus parameters used in these studies often vary from one study to the next, and few studies offer well defined rationale for their choice of stimuli, thereby making comparisons and interpretation across studies more challenging. Notably, artificial stimuli used for rodent research that may be thought of as relatively simple in comparison to naturalistic stimuli or movements, such as limb oscillation through a single axis of motion, still likely result in the generation of complex multimodal sensory information in the periphery. These multimodal signals may arise from activation of mechanoreceptors at the stimulator attachment site, the propagation of vibration at the fundamental and harmonic frequencies to distal Pacinian corpuscles closely associated with joints and bones[10], the activation of proprioceptive receptors within the muscles and joints, and to a large potential array of signals arising due to deflections of hair follicle associated mechanoreceptors (for review, see [11]). Although particular subsets of cutaneous and proprioceptive mechanoreceptors have long been known in non-human primates to be tuned to characteristics such as stimulus intensity, frequency and receptive field location[1,2,12–15], the harmonics resulting from square-wave oscillation of the entire forelimb or hindlimb of mice would likely elicit highly mixed activity in mechanoreceptor populations, with weighted preference to mechanoreceptor populations most sensitive to the particular frequencies and biomechanics of the stimulus.

Comment: - The authors use “limb movement” and “limb vibration” interchangeably throughout the manuscript. These are fundamentally different stimuli with each having its own specialized mechanoreceptors (Meissner and Pacinian corpuscles transduce vibrations and proprioceptors transduce limb movement).

Response: We believe the reviewer may have been referring to “limb movement” and “limb oscillation” that were used throughout the study. “Limb vibration” was not used to refer to our stimuli. We agree that “limb movement” could be interpreted as a unidirectional non-oscillitory movement of the limb that would be solely proprioceptive, and we have thus amended the manuscript to change all references of “limb movement” to “limb oscillation”. We have also changed all references of “vibrotactile” to “oscillatory”

Comment: - Page 6, line 123: can you give the precise coordinates of the imaging sites and how do these compare to those previously reported for the location of the forelimb and hindlimb S1?

Response: Imaging sites for the forelimb associated somatosensory region and the hindlimb associated somatosensory region were determined via flavoprotein autofluorescence intrinsic optical signal imaging as depicted in Fig 1a and as described in the methods sections “Identification of forelimb and hindlimb somatosensory cortex representations” and “Calcium imaging”.

Comment: - Page 6, line 132: why is the impedance of the pipette relevant for injections?

Response: This detail was included for replicability. The impedance of the pipette is proportional to the diameter of the opening at the tip of the pipette and determines the flow rate of solution out of the pipette into the tissue. Too quick of an injection holds the potential to damage tissue, so measures of the rate of OGB-1 indicator injection were closely monitored.

Comment: - Page 7, line 153: the authors should explain what “photon-shot noise” is.

Response: Photon-shot noise is a well characterized source of noise in a digitized image when using photodetectors to capture photons (see https://spie.org/samples/PM170.pdf). We have amended the text to increase clarity for this section.

“Using custom scripts written in Metamorph (Molecular Devices, California U.S.A.), a median filter (radius, 1 pixel) was applied to each of the image sequences of 8 trial sweeps at each frequency and duration of stimulation in order to remove photodetector related photon transfer noise (e.g. photon-shot noise) from the digitized images.”

Comment: - Page 8, line 169: a detailed description of the AUC analysis is missing. What exactly is being classified here? What does “half-width” refer to? Where is time-to-peak analyzed in the results?

Response: Time-to-peak did not vary by stimulus and was removed from the manuscript. Half-width is highly correlated with AUC and redundant, so it was also removed from the manuscript. We have amended the manuscript to further describe AUC as follows.

Methods

Neuronal traces that met these criteria were included in subsequent analysis of peak amplitude and area under the curve (AUC) measurements. AUC was measured as the total area under the curve of the ΔF/Fo from when the stimulus began to when the ΔF/Fo returned to the baseline level. AUC was used as a measurement of the sum strength of the calcium transient response over the time course of that particular transient.

Comment: - Page 8, lines 179-181: was the data z-scored prior to calculating the correlation coefficients?

Response: Yes, Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient is used to generate r values correlating the deltaF/Fo of neurons.

Comment: - Page 9, line 189: a better description of the “seed-based” analysis is needed.

Response: Manuscript has been amended with further description as follows:

In order to demonstrate a visual example of how the calcium fluorescence of a single cell may correlate with other pixels across an imaging window, a custom Matlab R2018a (Mathworks) script was used to generate an example seed-based stimulus-evoked neuronal correlation map (as shown in Fig 4a). With this script, filtered image sequences of ΔF/Fo were imported into Matlab and the signal trace for a chosen neuron was correlated with the ΔF/Fo of all pixels within the imaging field (a representative image during 1s 100Hz stimulus measured at a depth of 130μm in the cHL region is shown in Fig 4a).

Comment: - The stimulus evoked trace in figure 2C does not appear to be an actual calcium transient, but looks more like noise fluctuations. Is this the best available example for a 10 Hz selective neuron? Is this bump that appears in the average trace only due to a single trial or does it reliably appear across multiple trials?

Response: We have amended Fig 2B,C with two better example neurons that demonstrated above threshold responses to all stimuli with preferential activation by high frequency stimuli in B, and strongest activation by the 10Hz stimulus in C.

Comment: - In general, the authors cannot rule out frequency selective responses because of the limited number of frequencies tested. We do not know what happens beyond 300 Hz.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that an extended frequency range and more comprehensive number of tested frequencies may demonstrate cells with responses selectively tuned to certain high frequencies as demonstrated in Prsa et al., 2019.

Comment: - Page 12, lines 266-267: could this be due to saturated Ca responses? In general, why is the decay of the calcium transient relevant? What does it reflect exactly?

Response: If we were to speculate, a longer decay tau for the population response to high frequency stimuli may indicate that the neuronal population takes longer to desensitize in its firing rate over the period of the 1 second stimulation leading to a longer calcium transient. This however would have to be shown in future studies measuring the desensitization of spiking activity using electrical neurophysiology instead of calcium imaging due to the slow temporal dynamics of calcium imaging.

Comment: - Page 14, lines 299-300: or could it be due to the fact that nearby neurons have more similar expression levels?

Response: DeltaF/Fo was calculated from the fluorescence measurements of each of the cells which normalizes for fluorescence level of the cell, and Pearson’s r was used for correlation analysis, so we support our initial interpretation.

Comment: - Page 14, lines 308-310: how does this compare to analysing the pre- or post- stimulus baseline period and also is it significant when running a randomization test with shuffled data?

Response: We have added an additional stationary bootstrapping procedure to create figure 4c,d that displays correlation values that were greater than the 97.5th percentile of the bootstrap. A 5 frame mean block length for the stationary bootstrap was used as this corresponds to a block length of 200ms for our 25Hz sampling rate, the minimum period of time between current pulses necessary to detect a calcium transient for independent action potentials measured using OGB-1 (Tada et al., 2014). The differences observed remain significant after the bootstrapping procedure.

Comment: - Page 14, lines 312-313: could this simply be due to the fact that higher frequencies have stronger and more frequent responses and thus yield higher correlation coefficients? Was Z scoring performed?

Response: Pearson’s r between the deltaF/Fo of each cell was used in the correlation analysis. We agree with the reviewers interpretation; it is likely that the stronger and more frequent responses to higher frequency stimuli directly lead to the higher average cross-correlation measured.

Comment: - Page 15, lines 340-342: It is not clear what this means or implies.

Response: We have amended the manuscript text as follows:

Thus, the low percent overlap for these 10 oscillation stimuli and the trend towards dissimilarity when comparing their correlation maps (Fig 5a-d) is a better indicator of differences between the population responses to these 10 oscillation stimuli than the averaged response characteristics of these populations (Fig5e-h).

Comment: - Page 16, lines 351-352: the authors compare 0.1 s and 0.05 s stimulus durations with 1 s durations (a 10 to 20 fold duration difference). Why such big differences and such short stimuli? A 50 ms vibration will hardly evoke any spikes.

Response: If somatosensory responses were primarily dependent on the frequency of the stimulus, and not modulated by the duration of the stimulus, then we’d expect both short and long duration stimuli to show similarities in their evoked somatosensory responses and/or the pattern of correlation within their cell-cell correlation maps. We show that this is not the case, and that the duration of the stimulus has a significant effect on the pattern of the cortical response.

Comment: - Page 16, lines 359-360: how do the authors explain this?

Response: Our study is not able to define why within trial comparisons for the 100Hz stimuli were significantly different from the between trial comparisons of 0.1s and 1s 100Hz stimuli, whereas this was not the case for the 200Hz stimuli. If we were to speculate, we may hypothesize that as the frequency of the stimulus increases past a certain frequency threshold for the particular mechanical stimulator used in this study there is a shift towards more weighted activation of Pacinian corpuscles and other high frequency sensitive receptors leading to more similar cortical representation between the two durations of 200Hz stimuli, but this would have to be shown with further research.

Comment: - The analysis of the population dF/F (Fig 3A) does not provide much insight. While not incorrect, there is little gain in understanding of encoding properties by showing the population as a whole is more active when the authors have shown in the previous figure that the number of neurons recruited is increased for higher frequency stimuli. The amplitude, decay time and AUC are all strongly related to each other, as calcium signals are subject to decay. It is unclear what the additional functional significance is of the AUC or decay time being different across stimulation frequencies.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that the analysis of population dF/F does not provide any information on encoding properties of a population responding to different stimuli. It does, however, demonstrate that the stronger cortical responses to high frequency stimuli are not well captured within the average response amplitude across the population, but are instead more significantly captured by the duration of the fluorescence increase (indicated by greater AUC and decay times) and the percent of neurons that show an increase in fluorescence indicative of more than one action potential underlying their calcium transient - what we have termed "strongly responding" neurons here (now described in methods).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Dec 2020.docx

Decision Letter 1

Gennady S Cymbalyuk

25 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-21079R1

Distinct patterns of activity in individual cortical neurons and local networks in primary somatosensory cortex of mice evoked by square-wave mechanical limb stimulation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Winship,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please, revise the manuscript address concerns raised by reviewer #1.

Abstract:

- Lines 36-39: Please, rephrase for clarity : “process dissimilar stimuli with distinct patterns of activity” and “represent distinct […] stimuli with unique patterns of activity”.

Introduction:

- Lines 58-59: Please, provide references to studies using square-wave pulses “as measures of cortical excitability and plastic changes during disease or after injury”?

- Lines 60-61: This sentence should be nuanced. Literature on the somatosensory system of rodents is quite extensive if taking into account the vibrissae system.

- Lines 61-62: Rodents are certainly not the “most prominent animal model used to study reaching and upper limb use and disability”. Sensorimotor studies on the rodent upper limb system have emerged only relatively recently. This system has been traditionally and most prominently studied in non-human primates. Also the reference that is cited here ([3]) has nothing to do with upper limb use and reaching, it instead provides a general comparison between rats and mice as models in biomedical research.

- Lines 67-73: Please, edit for clarity.

- Lines 96-98: Please, consider rewriting by more specifically stating the actual findings.

Methods

- Lines 142-143: Can the authors provide the coordinates relative to bregma of the identified cFL and cHL areas? This was asked in the previous revision but was not answered!

- In the initial review, I asked the authors to provide information about the actual amplitude of vibrations produced at each frequency. The authors replied that they amended the methods with the following information: “During stimulation, the entire limb underwent an oscillation with the following peak-peak amplitudes by frequency: 280um (3 & 10Hz), 335um (100Hz), 220um (200Hz), 170um (300Hz).”.

No detail is however given about how these amplitudes were measured! The authors mention that they “imaged the limb oscillations” with no additional technical detail. A 300 Hz oscillation would require a minimum 600 fps frame rate to capture the movement amplitude. Also, the following questions were not answered: At what sampling rate were the oscillations produced? How was the stimulus integrity assured? Was it consistent across several repetitions?

Results

Fig. 2B,C: The traces correspond to averages of 8 trials (no information about trail-to-trial variability is given). Can the authors also show the individual Ca traces from every trial? What do the polygons in the bottom panels represent (they are not mentioned in the figure legend)? Also, the labels on these polygons are tiny and thus unreadable.

Lines 268-270: This is entirely qualitative. Can the authors demonstrate statistically that the responses of these example neurons show stimulus specificity?

Fig.2: According to the activity maps in Fig.2A and 2D, a relatively large number of neurons is driven by the vibrotactile stimulation. This is in contradiction to what has previously been reported for L2/3 of the somatosensory cortex. Even in awake behaving mice, evoked activity by tactile stimulation remains very sparse. O’Connor et al. (Neuron, 2010) found that “A sparse subset of L2/3 neurons showed robust fluorescence transients […] high event rates were seen in only a small subset of neurons, with the majority showing low, near zero, event rates” in the vibrissae S1. Prsa et al. (Nature, 2019) reported 1,285 responsive neurons from 75 fields of view in the forelimb S1, yielding ca. 17 neurons per field of view. The authors found a much larger number of responding neurons under anaesthesia (Fig.2A,D). Can the authors quantify these numbers and how do they explain the discrepancy with previous studies?

The authors also avoided addressing the following comment from the previous revision:

“Why was such a high amplitude chosen? Previous studies in rodents used an order of magnitude smaller amplitudes (in the um range) which evoked highly reliable responses and is already well beyond their perceptual thresholds. It therefore seems highly plausible that the 1 mm oscillations evoked highly saturated neural responses, which are definitely not in the natural perceptual range of mice.”

The following question from the previous revision was not answered:

“A threshold criterion was used to identify responsive neurons. Was this analysis done on the average traces or on every single trial? The authors claim that this procedure was “optimal for separating responsive neurons from noise”, but based on what criteria?”

The authors still state in the manuscript that their criterion is “optimal”. How is optimality assessed? Compared to what?

The authors gave the following answer to the question regarding the analysis of the Ca transient decay:

“If we were to speculate, a longer decay tau for the population response to high frequency stimuli may indicate that the neuronal population takes longer to desensitize in its firing rate over the period of the 1 second stimulation leading to a longer calcium transient. This however would have to be shown in future studies measuring the desensitization of spiking activity using electrical neurophysiology instead of calcium imaging due to the slow temporal dynamics of calcium imaging.”

I agree with the authors that this is highly speculative and also still do not understand why it is relevant to analyze the decay. I would suggest removing this analysis from the manuscript.

The following question from the previous revision was not answered:

“Page 12, lines 266-267: could this be due to saturated Ca responses?”

The authors answered the following in the previous revision:

“We agree with the reviewers interpretation; it is likely that the stronger and more frequent responses to higher frequency stimuli directly lead to the higher average crosscorrelation measured.”

The authors should therefore clearly state this in their manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gennady Cymbalyuk, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have done an unsatisfactory job in addressing the reviewers’ concerns and comments. Many of the questions from the initial revision were not answered or not properly addressed. These are detailed here below.

Moreover, the authors now state that the main contribution of their work is that the “characterization of the distinct patterns of neural activity elicited by such stimuli is of importance as these forms of squarewave stimulation are used in multiple fields outside of the study of sensory coding, such as in the observation of cortical recovery from damage or disease.”

It however remains unclear what exact implication these results can have on studies of cortical recovery from disease or other studies using similar sensory stimulation. The authors must do a better job arguing this point, beyond simple hand-waving. Otherwise, I really do not see the point of this manuscript and its results.

Abstract:

- Lines 36-39: I have trouble understanding the difference between “process dissimilar stimuli with distinct patterns of activity” and “represent distinct […] stimuli with unique patterns of activity”.

Introduction:

- Lines 58-59: Can the authors provide references to studies using square-wave pulses “as measures of cortical excitability and plastic changes during disease or after injury”?

- Lines 60-61: This sentence should be nuanced. Literature on the somatosensory system of rodents is quite extensive if taking into account the vibrissae system.

- Lines 61-62: Rodents are certainly not the “most prominent animal model used to study reaching and upper limb use and disability”. Sensorimotor studies on the rodent upper limb system have emerged only relatively recently. This system has been traditionally and most prominently studied in non-human primates. Also the reference that is cited here ([3]) has nothing to do with upper limb use and reaching, it instead provides a general comparison between rats and mice as models in biomedical research.

- Lines 67-69: Why is this point relevant here? Do the authors work towards solving this issue in their study?

- Lines 70-73: I don’t understand how this sentence relates to the previous one.

- Lines 96-98: I find this description too vague. Consider rewriting by more specifically stating the actual findings.

Methods

- Lines 142-143: Can the authors provide the coordinates relative to bregma of the identified cFL and cHL areas? This was asked in the previous revision but was not answered!

- In the initial review, I asked the authors to provide information about the actual amplitude of vibrations produced at each frequency. The authors replied that they amended the methods with the following information: “During stimulation, the entire limb underwent an oscillation with the following peak-peak amplitudes by frequency: 280um (3 & 10Hz), 335um (100Hz), 220um (200Hz), 170um (300Hz).”.

No detail is however given about how these amplitudes were measured! The authors mention that they “imaged the limb oscillations” with no additional technical detail. A 300 Hz oscillation would require a minimum 600 fps frame rate to capture the movement amplitude. Also, the following questions were not answered: At what sampling rate were the oscillations produced? How was the stimulus integrity assured? Was it consistent across several repetitions?

Results

Fig. 2B,C: The traces correspond to averages of 8 trials (no information about trail-to-trial variability is given). Can the authors also show the individual Ca traces from every trial? What do the polygons in the bottom panels represent (they are not mentioned in the figure legend)? Also, the labels on these polygons are tiny and thus unreadable.

Lines 268-270: This is entirely qualitative. Can the authors demonstrate statistically that the responses of these example neurons show stimulus specificity?

Fig.2: According to the activity maps in Fig.2A and 2D, a relatively large number of neurons is driven by the vibrotactile stimulation. This is in contradiction to what has previously been reported for L2/3 of the somatosensory cortex. Even in awake behaving mice, evoked activity by tactile stimulation remains very sparse. O’Connor et al. (Neuron, 2010) found that “A sparse subset of L2/3 neurons showed robust fluorescence transients […] high event rates were seen in only a small subset of neurons, with the majority showing low, near zero, event rates” in the vibrissae S1. Prsa et al. (Nature, 2019) reported 1,285 responsive neurons from 75 fields of view in the forelimb S1, yielding ca. 17 neurons per field of view. The authors found a much larger number of responding neurons under anaesthesia (Fig.2A,D). Can the authors quantify these numbers and how do they explain the discrepancy with previous studies?

The authors also avoided addressing the following comment from the previous revision:

“Why was such a high amplitude chosen? Previous studies in rodents used an order of magnitude smaller amplitudes (in the um range) which evoked highly reliable responses and is already well beyond their perceptual thresholds. It therefore seems highly plausible that the 1 mm oscillations evoked highly saturated neural responses, which are definitely not in the natural perceptual range of mice.”

The following question from the previous revision was not answered:

“A threshold criterion was used to identify responsive neurons. Was this analysis done on the average traces or on every single trial? The authors claim that this procedure was “optimal for separating responsive neurons from noise”, but based on what criteria?”

The authors still state in the manuscript that their criterion is “optimal”. How is optimality assessed? Compared to what?

The authors gave the following answer to the question regarding the analysis of the Ca transient decay:

“If we were to speculate, a longer decay tau for the population response to high frequency stimuli may indicate that the neuronal population takes longer to desensitize in its firing rate over the period of the 1 second stimulation leading to a longer calcium transient. This however would have to be shown in future studies measuring the desensitization of spiking activity using electrical neurophysiology instead of calcium imaging due to the slow temporal dynamics of calcium imaging.”

I agree with the authors that this is highly speculative and also still do not understand why it is relevant to analyse the decay. I would suggest removing this analysis from the manuscript.

The following question from the previous revision was not answered:

“Page 12, lines 266-267: could this be due to saturated Ca responses?”

The authors answered the following in the previous revision:

“We agree with the reviewers interpretation; it is likely that the stronger and more frequent responses to higher frequency stimuli directly lead to the higher average crosscorrelation measured.”

The authors should therefore clearly state this in their manuscript.

Reviewer #2: After the revision quality of the manuscript was significantly improved and, in my opinion, it is ready for publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0236684. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236684.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Mar 2021

Reviewer #1: The authors have done an unsatisfactory job in addressing the reviewers’ concerns and comments. Many of the questions from the initial revision were not answered or not properly addressed. These are detailed here below.

Moreover, the authors now state that the main contribution of their work is that the “characterization of the distinct patterns of neural activity elicited by such stimuli is of importance as these forms of squarewave stimulation are used in multiple fields outside of the study of sensory coding, such as in the observation of cortical recovery from damage or disease.”

It however remains unclear what exact implication these results can have on studies of cortical recovery from disease or other studies using similar sensory stimulation. The authors must do a better job arguing this point, beyond simple hand-waving. Otherwise, I really do not see the point of this manuscript and its results.

We thank the reviewer for his thorough review of the manuscript and suggestions for amendments, and apologize if our previous revisions were not sufficient. We have amended the introduction to further highlight the implications of our study for understanding somatosensory representations of mechanical square-wave stimuli under anesthetized conditions as follows:

Investigations of how the somatosensory cortex responds to artificial forms of stimulation, and to what extent patterns of regional and cellular activity can distinguish between distinct stimuli with overlapping characteristics, is important in interpreting studies that use such stimuli to elicit cortical responses in the healthy brain, or as a measure of cortical excitability and plasticity during disease or after injury [1–5]. While square-wave and sinusoidal patterns of mechanical limb stimulation have been used in studies after cortical injury, and those studies identified deficits in the amplitude and fidelity of evoked activity after damage to the somatosensory cortex (for example see [1,2,4,6]), a more detailed investigation across multiple frequencies and intensities of stimulation has not been performed with mechanical square-wave stimuli. Mechanical square-wave stimulation allows precise control of the fundamental frequency (as with sinusoidal stimulation) but includes harmonic frequencies. These harmonics may overlap between different stimuli, and it may, therefore, be more challenging for the somatosensory system to distinguish between these stimuli. Whereas considerable literature exists for somatosensation within the healthy brain in non-human primates (for review, see [7,8]), and the sensory-evoked response properties of the barrel cortex of rodents has been extensively studied [9,10], literature on the sensory evoked response properties of limb associated somatosensory system of rodents is more limited.

Abstract:

- Lines 36-39: I have trouble understanding the difference between “process dissimilar stimuli with distinct patterns of activity” and “represent distinct […] stimuli with unique patterns of activity”.

We have amended the abstract as follows:

Artificial forms of mechanical limb stimulation are used within multiple fields of study to determine the level of cortical excitability and to map the trajectory of neuronal recovery from cortical damage or disease. Square-wave mechanical or electrical stimuli are often used in these studies, but a characterization of sensory-evoked response properties to square-waves with distinct fundamental frequencies but overlapping harmonics has not been performed. To distinguish between somatic stimuli, the primary somatosensory cortex must be able to represent distinct stimuli with unique patterns of activity, even if they have overlapping features. Thus, mechanical square-wave stimulation was used in conjunction with regional and cellular imaging to examine regional and cellular response properties evoked by different frequencies of stimulation. Flavoprotein autofluorescence imaging was used to map the somatosensory cortex of anaesthetized C57BL/6 mice, and in vivo two-photon Ca2+ imaging was used to define patterns of neuronal activation during mechanical square-wave stimulation of the contralateral forelimb or hindlimb at various frequencies (3, 10, 100, 200, and 300 Hz). The data revealed that neurons within the limb associated somatosensory cortex responding to various frequencies of square-wave stimuli exhibit stimulus-specific patterns of activity. Subsets of neurons were found to have sensory-evoked activity that is either primarily responsive to single stimulus frequencies or broadly responsive to multiple frequencies of limb stimulation. High frequency stimuli were shown to elicit more population activity, with a greater percentage of the population responding and greater percentage of cells with high amplitude responses. Stimulus-evoked cell-cell correlations within these neuronal networks varied as a function of frequency of stimulation, such that each stimulus elicited a distinct pattern that was more consistent across multiple trials of the same stimulus compared to trials at different frequencies of stimulation. The variation in cortical response to different square-wave stimuli can thus be represented by the population pattern of supra-threshold Ca2+ transients, the magnitude and temporal properties of the evoked activity, and the structure of the stimulus-evoked correlation between neurons.

Introduction:

- Lines 58-59: Can the authors provide references to studies using square-wave pulses “as measures of cortical excitability and plastic changes during disease or after injury”?

We have amended the introduction as follows:

Investigations of how the somatosensory cortex responds to artificial forms of stimulation, and to what extent patterns of regional and cellular activity can distinguish between distinct stimuli with overlapping characteristics, is important in interpreting studies that use such stimuli to elicit cortical responses in the healthy brain, or as a measure of cortical excitability and plasticity during disease or after injury [1–5]. While square-wave and sinusoidal patterns of mechanical limb stimulation have been used in studies after cortical injury, and those studies identified deficits in the amplitude and fidelity of evoked activity after damage to the somatosensory cortex (for example see [1,2,4,6]), a more detailed investigation across multiple frequencies and intensities of stimulation has not been performed with mechanical square-wave stimuli. Mechanical square-wave stimulation allows precise control of the fundamental frequency (as with sinusoidal stimulation) but includes harmonic frequencies. These harmonics may overlap between different stimuli, and it may, therefore, be more challenging for the somatosensory system to distinguish between these stimuli. Whereas considerable literature exists for somatosensation within the healthy brain in non-human primates (for review, see [6,7]), and the sensory-evoked response properties of the barrel cortex of rodents has been extensively studied [9,10], literature on the sensory evoked response properties of limb associated somatosensory system of rodents is more limited.

- Lines 60-61: This sentence should be nuanced. Literature on the somatosensory system of rodents is quite extensive if taking into account the vibrissae system.

We have amended the manuscript as follows to make it more nuanced:

Investigations of how the somatosensory cortex responds to artificial forms of stimulation, and to what extent patterns of regional and cellular activity can distinguish between distinct stimuli with overlapping characteristics, is important in interpreting studies that use such stimuli to elicit cortical responses in the healthy brain, or as a measure of cortical excitability and plasticity during disease or after injury [1–5]. While square-wave and sinusoidal patterns of mechanical limb stimulation have been used in studies after cortical injury, and those studies identified deficits in the amplitude and fidelity of evoked activity after damage to the somatosensory cortex (for example see [1,2,4,6]), a more detailed investigation across multiple frequencies and intensities of stimulation has not been performed with mechanical square-wave stimuli. Mechanical square-wave stimulation allows precise control of the fundamental frequency (as with sinusoidal stimulation) but includes harmonic frequencies. These harmonics may overlap between different stimuli, and it may, therefore, be more challenging for the somatosensory system to distinguish between these stimuli. Whereas considerable literature exists for somatosensation within the healthy brain in non-human primates (for review, see [6,7]), and the sensory-evoked response properties of the barrel cortex of rodents has been extensively studied [9,10], literature on the sensory evoked response properties of limb associated somatosensory system of rodents is more limited.

- Lines 61-62: Rodents are certainly not the “most prominent animal model used to study reaching and upper limb use and disability”. Sensorimotor studies on the rodent upper limb system have emerged only relatively recently. This system has been traditionally and most prominently studied in non-human primates. Also the reference that is cited here ([3]) has nothing to do with upper limb use and reaching, it instead provides a general comparison between rats and mice as models in biomedical research.

We agree with the reviewer on this point, and apologize for the error in citation. We have amended the introduction as follows:

Investigations of how the somatosensory cortex responds to artificial forms of stimulation, and to what extent patterns of regional and cellular activity can distinguish between distinct stimuli with overlapping characteristics, is important in interpreting studies that use such stimuli to elicit cortical responses in the healthy brain, or as a measure of cortical excitability and plasticity during disease or after injury [1–5]. While square-wave and sinusoidal patterns of mechanical limb stimulation have been used in studies after cortical injury, and those studies identified deficits in the amplitude and fidelity of evoked activity after damage to the somatosensory cortex (for example see [1,2,4,6]), a more detailed investigation across multiple frequencies and intensities of stimulation has not been performed with mechanical square-wave stimuli. Mechanical square-wave stimulation allows precise control of the fundamental frequency (as with sinusoidal stimulation) but includes harmonic frequencies. These harmonics may overlap between different stimuli, and it may, therefore, be more challenging for the somatosensory system to distinguish between these stimuli. Whereas considerable literature exists for somatosensation within the healthy brain in non-human primates (for review, see [6,7]), and the sensory-evoked response properties of the barrel cortex of rodents has been extensively studied [9,10], literature on the sensory evoked response properties of limb associated somatosensory system of rodents is more limited. Given that rodents are a prominent animal model used to study recovery of reaching and upper limb use after central nervous system damage or disability [8,9], it is important to understand how different forms of somatic and movement related stimuli used in rodent research are processed in the rodent somatosensory cortex. Most current research on the limb-associated somatosensory cortex in rodents utilize artificial forms of mechanical[1,10–12] or electrical stimuli[13,14] to assess sensory-evoked responses using electrophysiology of individual cells or aggregate responses from large cortical regions.

- Lines 67-69: Why is this point relevant here? Do the authors work towards solving this issue in their study?

We agree that these comments were not relevant to the proposed work, and have removed these comments in the revised manuscript.

- Lines 96-98: I find this description too vague. Consider rewriting by more specifically stating the actual findings.

We have amended the section of the introduction as follows:

Calcium imaging has been used as a method for studying activity within regional cortical networks[1,21–24]. Here, Ca2+ imaging was used to investigate how the limb-associated somatosensory cortex represents different frequencies of square-wave limb oscillation, and if differential patterns of activity in somatosensory neurons and local networks could be detected within the Ca2+ response. Flavoprotein autofluorescence imaging[25–29] was first used to identify limb-associated regions of cortical activation during mechanical forelimb or hindlimb stimulation delivered with piezoelectric actuators[1,30] (Fig 1a). In vivo two-photon Ca2+ imaging was used to optically record the response properties of individual neurons and local neuronal networks within these limb-associated somatosensory regions during multiple frequencies of contralateral forelimb (cFL) or contralateral hindlimb (cHL) oscillation (Fig 1b-d). Our data shows that the magnitude of the neuronal population response in somatosensory cortex is non-linearly related to the frequency of mechanical limb stimulation. High frequency 100Hz, 200Hz and 300Hz stimuli were found to elicit more responding neurons, a greater response strength, and higher average cross-correlation between neurons than lower frequency 3Hz and 10Hz stimuli. Whereas average population response magnitude within the low frequency and high frequency groups was not a strong differentiator of how populations represented stimuli within these groups, the pattern of responsive neurons within the local neuronal network and differences observed in the cross-correlation maps for populations responding to these stimuli clearly differentiated between square-wave stimuli within and between stimulus groups.

Methods

- Lines 142-143: Can the authors provide the coordinates relative to bregma of the identified cFL and cHL areas? This was asked in the previous revision but was not answered!

Please note that a coordinate based system was not used to define the exact position of the cFL and cHL, as the stereotaxic coordinates of these regions can vary from strain to strain, from colony to colony within a particular strain, and even to some degree from mouse to mouse within a colony. An area on the skull surface with coordinates +2mm to -2mm anterior-posterior, and +1mm to +5mm lateral to bregma was thinned, then flavoprotein IOS imaging performed using a low magnification (2.5X) objective capturing the entire thinned area. Flavoprotein IOS denoted the precisely mapped cortical areas responsive to the cFL or cHL, respectively. A craniotomy of approximately 3x3mm was then centered over the approximate centre of mass of the cFL/cHL region. The cFL and cHL regions mapped via flavoprotein IOS were used for injection of the OGB-1 indicator. These maps were also used to determine the precise locations for Ca2+ imaging within these regions. Approximate center of mass coordinates of the cHL was 2mm lateral, -1mm posterior. Approximate coordinates for the cFL was +1mm anterior, +2.5mm lateral from bregma. We have further amended the methods with the following to further clarify:

A 4 x 4 mm region of the skull overlying the right hemisphere somatosensory region was thinned to 25-50% of original thickness using a high-speed dental drill (~1-5mm lateral, +2 to -2 mm posterior to bregma). This thinned region was covered with 1.3% low-melt agarose dissolved in artificial CSF (ACSF) at 37oC, then covered with a 3mm glass coverslip. Flavoprotein autofluorescence (FA) imaging was performed through this thin skull preparation before in vivo Ca2+ imaging to determine somatosensory limb regions on the cortex. These mapped regions were later used for OGB-1 indicator injection and for determination of imaging window coordinates for Ca2+ imaging following the FA mapping.

- In the initial review, I asked the authors to provide information about the actual amplitude of vibrations produced at each frequency. The authors replied that they amended the methods with the following information: “During stimulation, the entire limb underwent an oscillation with the following peak-peak amplitudes by frequency: 280um (3 & 10Hz), 335um (100Hz), 220um (200Hz), 170um (300Hz).”.

No detail is however given about how these amplitudes were measured! The authors mention that they “imaged the limb oscillations” with no additional technical detail. A 300 Hz oscillation would require a minimum 600 fps frame rate to capture the movement amplitude. Also, the following questions were not answered: At what sampling rate were the oscillations produced? How was the stimulus integrity assured? Was it consistent across several repetitions?

The movement of the limb was imaged using a Dalsa Pantera 1M60 camera mounted on a Leica SP5 microscope using a 2.5X objective. The limb was attached to the stimulator and placed on a black background to increase contrast of the limb relative to the background. Three different imaging frame rates and resolutions were recorded for each frequency of limb stimulus based on the limits imposed by the camera hardware: 58fps at 1024x1024, 100fps at 512x512 and 157fps at 256x256. As all of these imaging frame rates were undersampling relative to the Nyquist criterion for the 300Hz stimuli, we employed several measures to get an index of the peak-to-peak amplitude of the limb oscillation as follows. For all imaging framerates, we recorded extended video (upwards of 5 minutes per recording), then used max intensity projections to determine the maximal bending amplitude of the stimulus at each stimulus frequency. To confirm this method, we compared the max projection measurements and frame-per-frame measurements for low frequency stimuli and found them to be equal. Peak-to-peak deviation measurements from all three imaging framerates at all frequencies were compared and found not to be significantly different. To determine if the peak-to-peak bending amplitude was consistent across multiple stimulus trials, we repeated the video recordings multiple times and separately analyzed each trial. Bending amplitudes were consistent across trials of the same stimulus frequency. Bending actuators were driven by an A-M Systems Model 2100 stimulator, an analog stimulator with 1 microsecond timing (250 ns jitter). These methods are not included in the methods section, but could be added if warranted in the reviewer’s opinion.

Results

Fig. 2B,C: The traces correspond to averages of 8 trials (no information about trail-to-trial variability is given). Can the authors also show the individual Ca traces from every trial? What do the polygons in the bottom panels represent (they are not mentioned in the figure legend)? Also, the labels on these polygons are tiny and thus unreadable.

Figures have been revised with individual traces from every trial. Plots are revised and figure legend edited to mention that the plots demonstrate the peak Ca2+ response amplitude of the cell to each of the stimuli.

Lines 268-270: This is entirely qualitative. Can the authors demonstrate statistically that the responses of these example neurons show stimulus specificity?

We agree with the reviewer that these neurons are not showing specificity, only variance in their Ca2+ response magnitude to the different stimuli and preference for certain stimuli over others. The plots below the Ca2+ traces have been edited to make them more visible. These show the quantified response magnitude of the above neuron to each of the stimuli. We have amended the text to read as follows:

Fig 2b,c depict representative neurons selected from the imaging plane shown in A that display different magnitudes in their Ca2+ response to the different stimuli. Notably, the neuron in Fig 2b is more responsive to high frequency 100, 200, and 300Hz stimuli, whereas the neuron in Fig 2c exhibits a mean response that is transient and most strongly activated by 10Hz stimulation.

Fig.2: According to the activity maps in Fig.2A and 2D, a relatively large number of neurons is driven by the vibrotactile stimulation. This is in contradiction to what has previously been reported for L2/3 of the somatosensory cortex. Even in awake behaving mice, evoked activity by tactile stimulation remains very sparse. O’Connor et al. (Neuron, 2010) found that “A sparse subset of L2/3 neurons showed robust fluorescence transients […] high event rates were seen in only a small subset of neurons, with the majority showing low, near zero, event rates” in the vibrissae S1. Prsa et al. (Nature, 2019) reported 1,285 responsive neurons from 75 fields of view in the forelimb S1, yielding ca. 17 neurons per field of view. The authors found a much larger number of responding neurons under anaesthesia (Fig.2A,D). Can the authors quantify these numbers and how do they explain the discrepancy with previous studies?

Our results demonstrated approximately 15% of cells exhibiting a significant response to 3Hz or 10Hz stimuli, and approximately 30% of the population responding for each of the 100, 200, or 300Hz stimuli. This is quantified in Fig. 2E. These results are consistent with Hayashi et al., 2018 that performed a similar set of experiments using a vibrotactile stimulus applied to the limb of the mouse, also under anesthetized conditions. Note that the activity maps in Fig. 2A display not only deltaF/Fo within neurons, but also within the neuropil surrounding neurons. We have amended the results with the following:

Notably, high frequency 100 & 200Hz stimuli displayed a significantly greater percentage of above threshold responses relative to 3 & 10Hz stimuli. Consistent with previous research by Hayashi et al., 2018, approximately 15% of neurons exhibited a significant response for the 3Hz or 10Hz stimuli, and approximately 30% of the population exhibited a significant response for each of the 100, 200, or 300Hz stimuli (Fig 2e). The majority of neurons with above threshold Ca2+ responses were responding to multiple stimuli, with approximately 32.7 ± 4.2% selective to a single stimulus, 33.2 ± 1.8% activated by two stimuli, and 34.1 ± 3.8% activated by three or more stimuli (Fig 2f).

The authors also avoided addressing the following comment from the previous revision:

“Why was such a high amplitude chosen? Previous studies in rodents used an order of magnitude smaller amplitudes (in the um range) which evoked highly reliable responses and is already well beyond their perceptual thresholds. It therefore seems highly plausible that the 1 mm oscillations evoked highly saturated neural responses, which are definitely not in the natural perceptual range of mice.”

and

The following question from the previous revision was not answered: “Page 12, lines 266-267: could this be due to saturated Ca responses?”

The stimulator moved the entire limb and was not directed to a focal location on the glabrous skin. The large amplitude stimuli were chosen to elicit strong activity in proprioceptive receptor populations of the limb in addition to cutaneous receptor activation at the site of stimulator attachment. We agree with the reviewer that the stimuli are not naturalistic, however it is speculation on whether the neural responses were saturated or not. We have amended the discussion with the following text to address this possibility:

This study did not attempt to directly examine the contribution of specific mechanoreceptor populations in the limbs to the afferent signal generated by our square-wave stimuli and their corresponding cortical responses. While it is not possible to give specific predictions on how strongly each modality was represented within the afferent response and cortical activity, peripheral mechanoreceptors are known to have varied activation thresholds at a range of frequencies[75,76], and the overall pattern of evoked activity would therefore reflect mixed afferent signals generated by the stimuli in this study. Saturation of the calcium response for high frequency limb oscillation could potentially contribute to similarities in the percent of neurons responding (Fig 2e) and the average population response magnitude (Fig 3) to our high frequency stimuli. However, distinct patterns of cellular responses for neurons responsive to each of the high frequency stimuli (Fig 2g), and differences observed in the correlational map structure between different high frequency stimuli (Figs 5,6), suggest that the calcium response maintained sufficient fidelity to record distinct representations of stimulus frequency. Future studies could make use of measurement methods with higher temporal fidelity and transgenic animals expressing channelrhodopsins in genetically-identified modality specific afferents to further examine the contribution of particular modalities to the cortical response[62].

The following question from the previous revision was not answered:

“A threshold criterion was used to identify responsive neurons. Was this analysis done on the average traces or on every single trial? The authors claim that this procedure was “optimal for separating responsive neurons from noise”, but based on what criteria?” The authors still state in the manuscript that their criterion is “optimal”. How is optimality assessed? Compared to what?

The threshold criterion was chosen as an effective method to identify signal from noise in averaged traces consistent with previous studies (e.g. Roth et al., 2012, Winship et al., 2007,2008). We have further amended the methods as follows to highlight how this was assessed:

Due to the large number of signal traces that required analysis (over 40,000 traces; over 6000 neurons; 10 mice), a range of threshold criteria, based on previous research [1,23,32–34], were tested to differentiate responsive neuron Ca2+ transients from fluorescent noise. This range of threshold criteria was tested against manual annotation of Ca2+ responses gathered from multiple observers for a small subset of the experimental dataset from multiple animals. Positive identification of a Ca2+ transient from noise within the manual annotation was based on the expected Ca2+ transient waveform demonstrating fast rise on the leading edge of the fluorescence, and a slow decay back to baseline. The threshold criteria found to most effectively select Ca2+ transient waveforms that met this expected waveform shape was selected for identification of Ca2+ transients across all animals. A threshold criteria requiring the Ca2+ fluorescence of the cell, averaged from 8 trials, to increase by 3X the standard deviation of the baseline period ΔF/Fo (baseline defined as 1s before stimulus onset), and remain above this criteria for 160ms (4 successive frames), was used to differentiate the Ca2+ transient waveform of a response of the neuron from random noise fluctuations.

The authors gave the following answer to the question regarding the analysis of the Ca transient decay:

“If we were to speculate, a longer decay tau for the population response to high frequency stimuli may indicate that the neuronal population takes longer to desensitize in its firing rate over the period of the 1 second stimulation leading to a longer calcium transient. This however would have to be shown in future studies measuring the desensitization of spiking activity using electrical neurophysiology instead of calcium imaging due to the slow temporal dynamics of calcium imaging.”

I agree with the authors that this is highly speculative and also still do not understand why it is relevant to analyse the decay. I would suggest removing this analysis from the manuscript.

We agree that this is speculative, and accordingly have removed the decay analysis from the manuscript as suggested.

The authors answered the following in the previous revision:

“We agree with the reviewers interpretation; it is likely that the stronger and more frequent responses to higher frequency stimuli directly lead to the higher average crosscorrelation measured.” The authors should therefore clearly state this in their manuscript.

We have amended the discussion with the following:

A greater average cross-correlation for high frequency stimuli was observed (Fig 4e), potentially due to stronger and more frequent responses within the neural population to these high frequency stimuli.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reply to Reviewers March 2021 For Submission.docx

Decision Letter 2

Gennady S Cymbalyuk

7 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-21079R2

Distinct patterns of activity in individual cortical neurons and local networks in primary somatosensory cortex of mice evoked by square-wave mechanical limb stimulation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Winship,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

-Please, provide description of how limb movement amplitudes were measured in the Methods section and

consider adding reference 23 to the sentence: " ... and transgenic animals expressing channelrhodopsins in genetically-identified modality specific afferents to further examine the contribution of particular modalities to the cortical response[62]. "

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 22 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gennady S. Cymbalyuk, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Two final comments:

- I would suggest including the description of how limb movement amplitudes were measured in the Methods section.

- I suggest adding reference 23 to the sentence: " ... and transgenic animals expressing channelrhodopsins in genetically-identified modality specific afferents to further examine the contribution of particular modalities to the cortical response[62]. "

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0236684. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236684.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


13 Apr 2021

Reviewer #1: Two final comments:

- I would suggest including the description of how limb movement amplitudes were measured in the Methods section.

- I suggest adding reference 23 to the sentence: " ... and transgenic animals expressing channelrhodopsins in genetically-identified modality specific afferents to further examine the contribution of particular modalities to the cortical response[62]. "

We thank the reviewer for their final comments for our manuscript. We have added reference 23 to the sentence and have added the following description of how limb movement amplitudes were measured to the methods section:

During stimulation, the entire limb underwent an oscillation with the following peak-peak amplitudes by frequency based on the limb weight loaded electromechanical properties of the bending actuator: 280um (3 & 10Hz), 335um (100Hz), 220um (200Hz), 170um (300Hz). To determine these peak-peak oscillation amplitudes, the movement of the limb was imaged using a Dalsa Pantera 1M60 camera mounted on a Leica SP5 microscope using a 2.5X objective. The limb was attached to the stimulator and placed on a black background to increase contrast of the limb relative to the background. Bending actuators were driven by an A-M Systems Model 2100 stimulator, an analog stimulator with 1 microsecond timing (250 ns jitter). Three different imaging frame rates and resolutions were recorded for each frequency of limb stimulus based on the limits imposed by the camera hardware: 58fps at 1024x1024 (17.24ms exposure), 100fps at 512x512 (10ms exposure) and 157fps at 256x256 (6.37ms exposure). As all of these imaging frame rates were undersampling relative to the Nyquist criterion for the 300Hz stimuli, we employed several measures to get an index of the peak-to-peak amplitude of the limb oscillation as follows. For all imaging framerates, we recorded extended video (approximately 5 minutes per recording), then used max intensity projections to determine the maximal bending amplitude of the stimulus at each stimulus frequency. To confirm this method, we compared the max projection measurements and frame-per-frame measurements for low frequency stimuli and found them to be equal. Peak-to-peak deviation measurements from all three imaging framerates at all frequencies were compared and found not to be significantly different. To determine if the peak-to-peak bending amplitude was consistent across multiple stimulus trials, we repeated the video recordings multiple times and separately analyzed each trial. Bending amplitudes were consistent across trials of the same stimulus frequency.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reply to Reviewers April 2021.docx

Decision Letter 3

Gennady S Cymbalyuk

16 Apr 2021

Distinct patterns of activity in individual cortical neurons and local networks in primary somatosensory cortex of mice evoked by square-wave mechanical limb stimulation

PONE-D-20-21079R3

Dear Dr. Winship,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gennady S. Cymbalyuk, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Gennady S Cymbalyuk

20 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-21079R3

Distinct patterns of activity in individual cortical neurons and local networks in primary somatosensory cortex of mice evoked by square-wave mechanical limb stimulation

Dear Dr. Winship:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gennady S. Cymbalyuk

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Visual example of the structural similarity (SSIM)-based method for trial-by-trial comparisons of correlational map similarity.

    In this example depicting the stimulus-evoked correlation maps from an example animal in the cHL at 130um depth, the SSIM value and SSIM comparison image display greater similarity for within trials of 0.1s 100Hz (A) and within trials for 1s 100Hz (B). Comparisons between trials of stimuli with different frequency or temporal durations demonstrate less structural similarity and a lower SSIM value (C). To generate the SSIM charts seen in Figs 5 and 6 and 8 trials of each stimulus were compared for SSIM value within and between stimuli as shown in (D) (comparison between 4 trials of each shown here).

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Short duration, high frequency stimuli lead to differential cortical activity from long duration, low frequency stimuli.

    (A) Example heat map matrices of the pairwise stimulus-evoked correlation coefficient between a population of 74 neurons within the cFL somatosensory cortex of one example animal at 160μm depth for 0.1s 100Hz, 0.05s 200Hz, 1s 3Hz, and 1s 10Hz stimuli. Structural similarity comparison of the maps depicts greater map similarity for within stimulus trial conditions than between stimulus trial comparisons (B). A significant effect of stimulus is observed in the percent of neurons responding (D) and in the neuron decay tau (F), but not in the neuron response amplitude (C) or the neuron AUC (E). (G) Color coded quantification chart displaying the percentage overlap between neuron populations responsive to each stimulus quantified for all animals (N = 10). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Dec 2020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reply to Reviewers March 2021 For Submission.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reply to Reviewers April 2021.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://osf.io/rhfqy/.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES