| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Department of Zoology University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019
Submitted 11 February 2003; accepted in final form 21 March 2003
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
). Thus
individual odorants are represented combinatorially in initial stages of
olfactory processing. Central olfactory structures then make at least two
additions to this initial feature extraction critical for odorant
discrimination, namely enhancement of contrast between odorant features and
synthesis or binding of multiple features into odorant objects. Lateral and
feedback inhibition and excitation combine to enhance signal-to-noise ratios
in olfactory bulb output neuron (mitral/tufted cell) spike trains as well as
enhance contrast between similar molecular features
(Luo and Katz 2001;
Yokoi et al. 1995).
In mammals, synthesis of odorant features into odorant objects has been
hypothesized to occur, at least in part, through anatomical convergence of
mitral cells conveying activity induced by multiple odorant features onto
individual target cells in the piriform cortex
(Granger and Lynch 1991;
Haberly 2001;
Zou et al. 2001). Individual
mitral cells terminate in small patches within anterior piriform cortex (aPCX)
(Buonviso et al. 1991;
Ojima et al. 1984). Mitral
cells receiving input from a phenotypically specific group of receptor neurons
terminate in patches that overlap with patches from mitral cells conveying
different receptor neuron input (Zou et
al. 2001). This spatial convergence can be functionally enhanced
by dynamic temporal synchrony in mitral cell spike trains in both vertebrates
(Buonviso et al. 1992;
Kashiwadani et al. 1999) and
invertebrates (Christensen et al.
2000; Laurent et al.
2001; Stopfer et al.
1997).
Thus single piriform pyramidal cells may receive synchronous input from
mitral cells conveying processed information from many different olfactory
receptor types. Piriform cortical pyramidal cells, in turn, make extensive
associational connections throughout the piriform cortex, back to the
olfactory bulb as well as to other cortical structures
(Haberly 2001;
Johnson et al. 2000). The
relatively diffuse afferent input combined with a broad, extensive
intra-cortical association fiber system creates a highly combinatorial
network, ideal for synthetic processing of complex feature ensembles
(Haberly 2001).
However, given the wide range of odorants and odorant mixtures that animals
can discriminate, it is unlikely that synthetic coding is due to innate
hard-wiring but rather reflects an experience-dependent learning process that
allows synthesis of novel co-occurring features into odorant objects. Both
lateral olfactory tract (LOT) afferent synapses and association fiber synapses
in the piriform cortex express activity-dependent plasticity
(Hasselmo and Barkai 1995;
Jung et al. 1990;
Kanter and Haberly 1990;
Litaudon et al. 1997;
Roman et al. 1987;
Saar et al. 2002;
Stripling et al. 1991;
Wilson 1998b). Thus repeated
co-occurrence of synaptic activity evoked by specific combinations of odorant
features could result in a functional synthesis of those features such that
subsequent exposure to a partially degraded signal could still evoke a
"complete" odor sensation and recognition
(Barkai et al. 1994). A similar
process may be involved in inferotemporal visual cortex in the formation of
complex receptive fields for visual objects such as faces
(Miyashita and Hayashi 2000;
Rolls 2000;
Tanaka 2000) and appears to
occur within a few seconds of exposure to the visual object
(Tovee et al. 1996).
Previous work from our lab supports the view of experience-dependent odor
discrimination by aPCX neurons. A cross-habituation paradigm has been used to
assess odor discrimination by single neurons in the main olfactory bulb and
aPCX. Previous work has demonstrated that a 50-s exposure to one odorant
within a mitral cell's odorant receptive field produces cross-habituation to
other similar and dissimilar odorants
(Fletcher and Wilson 2002b;
Wilson 1998a,
2000b), suggesting poor
ability by these neurons to discriminate odorants within their receptive
fields. In contrast, following the same 50-s exposure, aPCX neurons show
significantly less cross-habituation, suggesting that they are able to
discriminate between those odorants (Wilson
2000a,b).
Muscarinic receptor blockade within the aPCX during the odorant exposure,
however, prevents the enhanced odor discrimination by aPCX neurons, resulting
strong cross-habituation between odorants within aPCX receptive fields similar
to mitral cells (Wilson
2001a). Given that acetylcholine modulates piriform cortical
synaptic plasticity (Hasselmo and Barkai
1995; Hasselmo et al.
1992; Patil et al.
1998), these latter results suggest an important role for
plasticity in cortical odorant discrimination.
The present report further examines the role of experience in odor-coding properties of aPCX neurons. It was hypothesized that if synaptic plasticity was required for cortical synthesis of novel odorant features, then there should be a minimum duration of odorant exposure (familiarization) required for that plasticity to occur. Without sufficient exposure, aPCX neurons should function similar to feature detecting mitral/tufted cells. Specifically, it was hypothesized that odorant discrimination ability by aPCX neurons should increase as the duration of previous exposure to those odorants increases.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Male Long-Evans hooded rats (150 – 450 g), obtained from Harlan Lab Animals, were used as subjects. Animals were housed in polypropylene cages lined with wood chips. Food and water were available ad libitum. Lights were maintained on a 12:12 light: dark cycle with testing occurring during the light portion of the cycle.
Experimental design
The design and rationale behind this experiment are shown in
Fig. 1 (intracellular data from
Best and Wilson 2002).
Familiarization with an odorant produces a rapid decrease in both odor-evoked
spiking and odor-evoked postsynaptic potentials in the aPCX
(Bouret and Sara 2002;
McCollum et al. 1991;
Wilson 1998a). While
odor-evoked spiking is generally completely abolished, subthreshold
postsynaptic activity is reduced but often partially maintained (Wilson
1998a,b).
Previous work has demonstrated that after 50 s of exposure to a novel odorant,
aPCX neurons can discriminate that odorant from similar odorants within their
receptive field, whereas mitral/tufted cells cannot (Wilson
2000a,b).
The present experiment examined aPCX single-unit discrimination between binary
mixtures and their components after either 10 or 50 s of familiarization,
using a cross-habituation paradigm. The 10-s time point was selected to
provide sufficient self-habituation to allow use of the cross-habituation
paradigm yet maintain a short exposure duration. The aPCX results are compared
with discrimination of the same stimuli by mitral/tufted cells after 50-s
exposure.
|
Recording and odorant stimulation
Details of single-unit recording and odor-response characterization
techniques for mitral/tufted and layer II/III aPCX neurons have been reported
in detail elsewhere (Wilson
1998a). Briefly, animals were anesthetized with urethan (1.5 g/kg)
and placed in a stereotaxic apparatus for electrode placement. Animals were
freely breathing with the respiratory cycle monitored through a piezoelectric
device strapped to the chest. The single-unit nature of the recordings were
verified by at least a 2-ms refractory period in interval histograms.
Mitral/tufted cells were identified by antidromic stimulation of the LOT and
layer II/III aPCX neurons were identified by LOT-evoked synaptic responses
and/or histological confirmation.
Odorants were delivered with a flow-dilution olfactometer, with a constant,
1 liters per minute (LPM) flow of charcoal-filtered, humidified air presented
1–2 cm from the animal's nose. Saturated odor vapor was added to the
clean airstream via computer-controlled solenoids to produce an approximate
dilution of 1:10 of saturated vapor. Odor stimulus onset was triggered off the
respiratory cycle to coincide with the transition from inhalation to
exhalation, and test stimulus duration was 2 s. Given that
urethan-anesthetized rats respire at 
2 Hz, this stimulus duration
corresponds to four inhalations. Stimuli delivered to produce familiarization
were either 10 or 50 s in duration (20 and 100 inhalations,
respectively). Odorants used were all novel to the animals, and particular
odorants were only used for one experimental cell for each animal. Stimuli
included molecularly dissimilar odorants, peppermint (McCormick), isoamyl
acetate (Sigma), and eugenol (Sigma); molecularly similar odorants, pentane,
heptane, and nonane (all from Sigma); and, to test the synthetic nature of
responses, binary mixtures of odorants within the dissimilar or similar
odorant set. To deliver odorants in binary mixtures, airflow was equally
divided between the two odorants, thus total volume of odorant mixture was the
same as for a single stimulus (see Wilson
2000a).
Both mitral/tufted and aPCX neuron responses to odorants were quantified as the difference in number of spikes evoked during the 2-s stimulus compared with a 2-s prestimulus period. An individual cell was tested with either molecularly similar or dissimilar odorants and at least one of their binary mixtures. The experimental protocol consisted of determining the cell's responses to the test odorants twice (including both single components and their mixtures) with at least a 60-s inter-stimulus interval. Then a binary mixture familiarization stimulus was presented lasting either 10 or 50 s. Within 30 s after the termination of the familiarization stimulus, the responses to test stimuli were reassessed to examine the magnitude of habituation and cross-habituation between the mixtures and their components. Finally, test odorants were reapplied 2–15 min later to confirm at least partial recovery of habituated responses. Response magnitudes to test stimuli were expressed as a percent of prefamiliarization magnitudes.
For aPCX neurons, comparisons were made between odorants and familiarization duration using a three-way ANOVA (odorant class x stimulus duration x component/mixture odorant) and post hoc comparisons. For mitral/tufted cells, levels of self-versus cross-habituation were compared with a paired t-test.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
While even simple odorants are believed to be treated by the peripheral olfactory system as being composed of multiple features, and thus requiring synthesis for object recognition, the present experiment utilized odorant mixtures to more directly test issues of synthetic processing. Most aPCX neurons responding to novel single odorants also responded to novel binary mixtures of those components (Fig. 2). Although stimuli were not equated for intensity, responses to novel mixtures included both mixture addition with the response magnitude to the mixture at or above the algebraic summation of the response to the components, and mixture suppression with the response magnitude to the mixture below the algebraic summation of the response to the components. Mixture suppression occurred most commonly with no difference in probability of addition and suppression between mitral/tufted cells and aPCX neurons—72% of mitral/tufted cells showed mixture suppression and 28% of mitral/tufted cells showed mixture addition. The proportions were identical for the aPCX.
|
Figure 3A shows a representative example of a mitral/tufted cell single-unit response to a novel binary mixture of molecularly dissimilar odorants and one of its components. Exposure to the binary mixture for 50 s (not including initial 2-s test stimuli) produced substantial habituation in the response to the mixture as well as dramatic cross-habituation to the component. The response of an aPCX neuron to the same novel binary mixture and one of its components is shown in Fig. 3C. In contrast to the mitral/tufted cell, after 50 s of exposure to the binary mixture the aPCX neuron shows minimal cross-habituation to the component despite marked habituation to the mixture.
|
Figure 3B shows a representative aPCX single-unit response to a novel binary mixture and one of its components before and after only 10 s of mixture exposure. The 10-s exposure period (not including initial 2-s test stimuli) was sufficient to produce marked self-habituation to the mixture but also resulted in marked cross-habituation to the component. This strong cross-habituation is in contrast to the amount of cross-habituation seen in aPCX after 50 s of exposure (Fig. 3C) but is similar to that observed in mitral/tufted cells (Fig. 3A).
Figure 4 shows mean data for mitral/tufted cell self- and cross-habituation after 50 s of exposure to a binary mixture. There was no difference in cross-habituation between similar and dissimilar odorants, so data from these two odorant classes were combined. There was no significant difference between the levels of self- and cross-habituation between binary mixtures and their components in mitral/tufted cells [paired t-test, t(26) = 1.29, N.S.]. Thus habituation of a mitral/tufted cell to a binary mixture produced comparable levels of cross-habituation to the mixture components, suggesting an inability of these cells to make this discrimination.
|
Figure 5 shows mean data for aPCX neuron self- and cross-habituation after 10 s (n = 18 cells for similar odorants and 19 cells for dissimilar mixtures) and 50 s (n = 20 cells for similar odorants and 20 cells for dissimilar mixtures) of exposure to a binary mixture. There was a main effect of odorant class with alkanes showing greater habituation than combinations of peppermint, isoamyl acetate or eugenol [F(1,146) = 12.46, P < 0.01] and a significant main effect of stimulus duration with 10 s of exposure producing slightly less habituation than 50 s of exposure [F(1,146) = 4.22, P < 0.05]. Importantly, there was a significant interaction between stimulus duration and component/mixture odorant variables [F (1,146) = 9.58, P < 0.01], suggesting that the duration of exposure to the mixture stimulus affected the magnitude of cross-habituation to the components. This was expressed for both mixtures of similar and dissimilar odorants [nonsignificant 3-way interaction, F(1,146) = 0.16].
|
Combined, these results show that both mitral/tufted cells exposed to an odorant mixture for 50 s and aPCX neurons exposed to a mixture for 10 s display significant cross-habituation to the components of that mixture, whereas aPCX neurons exposed to a binary odorant for 50 s showed significantly less cross-habituation to the components. Thus given sufficient (>10 s, <50 s) exposure to a novel binary mixture, aPCX neurons can discriminate that mixture from its components while mitral/tufted cells cannot.
Analyses of individual cell responses
An examination of discrimination performance of individual cells revealed
that for aPCX neurons exposed to the binary mixture for 50 s, 15 of 39 cells
(38.5%) had mean responses to the mixture components that were >50% of
preexposure levels. In contrast, for aPCX neurons exposed to the binary
mixture for 10 s, only 4 of 38 cells (10.5%) had mean responses to the mixture
components that were >50% of preexposure levels. This difference is
significant [
2(1) = 8.21, P < 0.01] and supports
the preceding data suggesting enhanced discrimination by aPCX neurons of
mixtures from components as the duration of exposure increases.
In a post hoc analysis, the individual data were further divided according to the nature of the cell's initial response to the mixture, i.e., whether the cell demonstrated mixture suppression or mixture addition. As noted in the preceding text, in this data set as a whole, 72% of aPCX neurons showed mixture suppression and 28% showed mixture addition relative to their responses to the components during initial response mapping. Cells showing mixture addition did not differ from cells showing mixture suppression in terms of the amount of cross-habituation they expressed after 10 s of mixture exposure. Thus 1 of 12 cells (8%) showing mixture addition had mean responses to the mixture components after 10 s of mixture exposure that were >50% of preexposure levels, while 3 of 25 cells (12%) showing mixture suppression had mean responses to the mixture components >50% of preexposure levels. This suggests that most cells, regardless of the nature of their original response to the mixture, were poor at discriminating the mixture from its components after only 10 s of exposure.
In contrast, while 50 s of mixture exposure improved discrimination by all cells compared with 10-s exposure, cells showing mixture addition were substantially better at discriminating the mixture from its components after a 50-s mixture exposure than cells showing mixture suppression. Of the 39 cells tested in the 50-s mixture exposure (collapsed across similar and dissimilar mixtures), 9 showed mixture addition and 30 showed mixture suppression. Of these cells, 7 of the 9 cells (78%) showing mixture addition had mean responses to the mixture components after 50 s of mixture exposure that were >50% of preexposure levels, whereas 8 of 30 cells (27%) showing mixture suppression had mean responses to the mixture components >50% of preexposure levels. This suggests that cells showing mixture addition to novel odor mixtures were better able to learn to discriminate those mixtures from their components after 50 s of exposure than cells showing mixture suppression, although it should be emphasized that these analyses are based on low numbers of cells per group.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
100 inhalations) of
familiarization with a previously novel odorant mixture is sufficient for the
piriform cortex to subsequently discriminate that mixture from its components.
However, 10 s of exposure to a novel mixture is insufficient as demonstrated
by significant cross-habituation between the mixture and its components by
aPCX neurons. Mitral/tufted cells in contrast show cross-habituation between
the mixture and its components even after 50 s of exposure. These results are
consistent with the hypothesis that mitral/tufted cells function as feature
detectors with receptive fields that include odorants containing the feature
to which that cell is responsive. Thus habituation to that feature reduces
mitral/tufted cell responses throughout their receptive fields. This is
similar to the conclusions reached by Giraudet et al.
(2002) in their analysis of
rat mitral cell temporal responses to binary odorant mixtures. In addition,
the results are consistent with the hypothesis that aPCX neurons, given
sufficient time for synaptic plasticity to occur, have synthetic receptive
fields, where each odorant within the receptive field is treated as a
relatively independent odorant object. With insufficient exposure, or with the
effects of that exposure pharmacologically disrupted
(Wilson 2001a), aPCX neurons
function as simple coincidence detectors of multiple feature input and show
strong cross-habituation to odorants within their receptive fields as feature
input is reduced. Potential mechanisms
The experience-induced increase in odorant discrimination by aPCX neurons could be due to plasticity within the olfactory bulb and/or plasticity within aPCX. Given the short duration of exposure required for these effects and the nature of the effects, we propose that changes at the receptor sheet are not involved.
Rapid changes within the olfactory bulb that could contribute to the
observed simple exposure-induced enhancement of odor discrimination by aPCX
neurons include fine tuning of individual glomerular
(Spors and Grinvald 2002) or
mitral/tufted cell receptive fields
(Buonviso and Chaput 2000;
Fletcher and Wilson 2002b),
changes in synchrony or spatio-temporal patterning of mitral/tufted cell
ensembles (Christensen et al.
2000; Friedrich and Laurent
2001; Grajski and Freeman
1989; Laurent et al.
2001; Ravel et al.
2003; Stopfer and Laurent
1999), and/or changes in descending cortical feedback to the
olfactory bulb (Gray and Skinner
1988; Kay and Freeman
1998).
Odorant exposure produces an odorant-specific spatial pattern of glomerular
activation (Guthrie et al.
1993; Johnson et al.
1998; Rubin and Katz
1999), presumably reflecting the unique combination of olfactory
receptor neurons activated by a particular odorant. Recent functional imaging
data in rodents suggest that this spatial pattern is dynamic, decreasing in
spatial extent and/or increasing in focus over the duration of an extended
odorant stimulus (Spors and Grinvald
2002). Single-unit recordings suggest a similar dynamic shaping of
rat mitral/tufted cell receptive fields induced by simple odorant exposure
(Fletcher and Wilson 2002b).
In invertebrates, olfactory lobe projection neurons undergo a similar dynamic
re-organization of ensemble activity over the course of prolonged or repeated
odorant stimulation, with spike timing becoming more precise with increasing
odorant familiarity (Stopfer and Laurent
1999). These changes in olfactory bulb circuit function may
reflect experience-induced changes in synaptic efficacy between receptor
neurons and projection neurons and/or interneurons and projection neurons.
In vertebrates, changes in olfactory bulb output patterns may also reflect
plasticity in descending cortical-olfactory bulb projections
(Gray and Skinner 1988;
Kay and Freeman 1998;
Potter and Chorover 1976).
Similar to thalamocortical sensory systems, the vertebrate olfactory bulb
receives a massive feedback projection from the olfactory cortex. As odorants
and feature combinations are processed by the piriform cortex (see following
text) cortical feedback, largely targeted at inhibitory granule cells in the
olfactory bulb, could help further enhance processing of odorant features at
the bulb level, similar to the role of cortico-thalamic projections in other
sensory systems (Ghazanfar et al.
2001; Murphy et al.
1999).
These potential adjustments in olfactory bulb odorant feature coding and
temporal synchrony of olfactory bulb output could make a direct impact on
stimulus discrimination even assuming the cortex functions as a simple
coincidence detector. However, we hypothesize that these experience-dependent
changes in activity of cortical afferents, in addition to enhancing odorant
identification during the stimulus, also promote synaptic plasticity within
cortical association fibers that allow a more permanent record of odorant
experience (Haberly 2001). In
fact, disruption of the normal cholinergic modulation of association fiber
synaptic plasticity (Hasselmo and Barkai
1995; Hasselmo et al.
1992; Patil et al.
1998) by scopolamine application limited to the aPCX alone, is
sufficient to disrupt the normally enhanced odorant discrimination by aPCX
neurons compared with mitral/tufted cells
(Wilson 2001a). Thus changes
occurring within the piriform cortex, or originating within the piriform
cortex and projected back to the olfactory bulb, appear to be critical for
enhanced odor discrimination and synthetic coding in the aPCX.
As outlined in detail elsewhere
(Haberly 2001;
Hasselmo et al. 1990;
Wilson 2001b), we propose that
the synthesis of co-occurring odorant features occurs largely through
plasticity of association fiber synapses. Several observations support this
locus. First, association fibers show more robust associative synaptic
plasticity (e.g., long-term potentiation) than do LOT synapses
(Kanter and Haberly 1990;
Roman et al. 1987;
Saar et al. 2002;
Stripling et al. 1991). In
fact, LOT synapses show a marked, homosynaptic depression after either
prolonged (50 s) odor exposure in vivo or tetanic stimulation of LOT fibers
(30 –50 s) in vitro (Best and Wilson
2002). This LOT synaptic depression is hypothesized to underlie
cortical adaptation to odors (Best and
Wilson 2002; Wilson
1998b). However, subthreshold odor-evoked postsynaptic potentials
are often observed beyond this time window
(Fig. 1)
(Best and Wilson 2002;
Wilson 1998b) and may
represent maintained association fiber activity, which could then allow for
plasticity underlying the changes in discrimination observed here. Cholinergic
modulation of synaptic potentials
(Hasselmo and Barkai 1995;
Hasselmo et al. 1992;
Linster et al. 1999;
Patil et al. 1998) and
neuronal adaptation (Barkai and Hasselmo
1994) could limit spread of the induced synaptic plasticity,
further enhancing specificity of the stored pattern.
A second reason for focusing on association fibers is that although
afferent fibers conveying information about activity from different olfactory
receptors converge within the aPCX, presumably onto single neurons
(Zou et al. 2001), cortical
association fibers show much more widely distributed projections throughout
and even beyond the piriform cortex
(Datiche et al. 1996;
Johnson et al. 2000). In fact,
odor-evoked spatial patterns of c-fos labeling more closely match the
widespread association fiber circuitry than the patchy afferent terminations
(Illig and Haberly 2003). Thus
the potential for feature convergence and object synthesis via association
fibers appears greater than for cortical afferents. Again, this is similar to
thalamocortical systems such as vision, where association fibers are believed
to play a larger role in feature synthesis and object completion than cortical
afferents (e.g., Chance et al.
1999; Crist et al.
2001).
Strengthening of association fiber synapses based on temporal convergence
of co-occurring odorant features could allow synthetic coding of familiar
odorants. Synthetic coding of odors as unique objects should enhance
discrimination of similar objects as well as enhance recognition of those
objects even if input is partially degraded
(Barkai et al. 1994;
Haberly 2001;
Hasselmo et al. 1992) as
demonstrated here.
Potential consequences
It is proposed that the rapid change in cortical odorant processing shown
here and its underlying neural plasticity are a fundamental, critical feature
of even basic odorant discrimination. That is, implicit olfactory perceptual
learning is required for odor discrimination, perhaps particularly for similar
odorants. In humans, a reliance of odor discrimination on memory is evidenced
by the impaired olfactory discrimination associated with memory disorders in
humans (e.g., Mair et al.
1980). In fact, patient HM, whose bilateral temporal lobe
resection included olfactory cortex, showed severe impairment in
discrimination of equal intensity odorants
(Eichenbaum et al. 1983). In
rats, discrimination of similar odorants can be enhanced by previous
experience with those odorants (Fletcher
and Wilson 2002a; Linster et
al. 2002). For example, naïve rats do not discriminate ethyl
esters differing by a single methyl group but can make this discrimination 24
h after exposure to the odorants (Fletcher
and Wilson 2002a). The cortical plasticity described here may
underlie this behavioral olfactory perceptual learning. In fact, both enhanced
aPCX odorant discrimination (Wilson
2001a) and olfactory perceptual learning
(Fletcher and Wilson 2002a)
are disrupted by scopolamine.
These results also suggest that experience could enhance mixture analysis
and, similarly, discrimination of a target odorant against an odorous
background. In fact, human data suggest that mixture
analysis—identification of components within an odor mixture— can
be enhanced by past experience, although the ability to correctly identify
components of mixtures rapidly decreases as mixtures exceed three to four
components regardless of experience
(Livermore and Laing 1996).
This limited mixture analysis may reflect an upper limit on cortical isolation
of simultaneous, independent odor object representations as well as a
predisposition of the olfactory system toward synthetic processing. Further
evidence of a strong synthetic component to odor processing comes from recent
work showing that odors experienced together can acquire the perceptual
characteristics of each other very rapidly
(Stevenson 2001).
Summary
Discrimination of odorants by neurons in the aPCX is enhanced by brief
(<50 s) experience with those odorants. Without sufficient experience, aPCX
neurons are no better than mitral/tufted cells at discriminating mixtures from
their components. These results are consistent with a feature detecting role
for mitral/tufted cells and an experience-dependent, synthetic processing role
for aPCX neurons in olfactory processing. Together with previous findings, the
results are also consistent with the view that implicit memory (perceptual
learning) based on cortical plasticity is necessary for odor discrimination
(Wilson and Stevenson 2003)
and that simple spatial convergence and temporal coincidence of cortical
afferents is insufficient to account for discrimination of complex
odorants.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Address for reprint requests: D. A. Wilson, Dept. of Zoology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 (E-mail: dwilson{at}ou.edu).
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Barkai E and
Hasselmo ME. Modulation of the input/output function of rat piriform
cortex pyramidal cells. J Neurophysiol
72: 644–658,
1994.
Best AR and Wilson DA. Synaptic correlates of cortical adaptation. Soc Neurosci Abstr 2002. Online.
Bouret S and Sara SJ. Locus coeruleus activation modulates firing rate and temporal organization of odor-induced single-cell responses in rat piriform cortex. Eur J Neurosci 16: 2371–2382, 2002.[ISI][Medline]
Buonviso N and Chaput MA. Olfactory experience decreases responsiveness of the olfactory bulb in the adult rat. Neuroscience 95: 325–332, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
Buonviso N,
Chaput MA, and Berthommier F. Temporal pattern analysis in pairs of
neighboring mitral cells. J Neurophysiol
68: 417–424,
1992.
Buonviso N, Revial MF, and Jourdan F. The projections of mitral cells from small local regions of the olfactory bulb: an anterograde tracing study using PHA-L (Phaseolus vulgaris Leuco-agglutinin). Eur J Neurosci 3: 493–500, 1991.[ISI][Medline]
Chance FS, Nelson SB, and Abbott LF. Complex cells as cortically amplified simple cells. Nat Neurosci 2: 277–282, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
Christensen TA, Pawlowski VM, Lei H, and Hildebrand JG. Multi-unit recordings reveal context-dependent modulation of synchrony in odor-specific neural ensembles. Nat Neurosci 3: 927–931, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
Crist RE, Li W, and Gilbert CD. Learning to see: experience and attention in primary visual cortex. Nat Neurosci 4: 519–525, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
Datiche F, Litaudon P, and Cattarelli M. Intrinsic association fiber system of the piriform cortex: a quantitative study based on a cholera toxin B subunit tracing in the rat. J Comp Neurol 376: 265–277, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
Eichenbaum H,
Morton TH, Potter H, and Corkin S. Selective olfactory deficits in case
HM. Brain 106:
459–472, 1983.
Fletcher M and
Wilson DA. Experience modifies olfactory acuity: ACh-dependent learning
decreases behavioral generalization between similar odorants. J
Neurosci 22:
RC201 (1–5), 2002a.
Fletcher ML and Wilson DA. Experience-induced changes in mitral/tufted cell receptive fields. Soc Neurosci Abstr 2002b. Online.
Friedrich RW and Laurent G. Dynamic optimization of odor representations by slow
temporal patterning of mitral cell activity. Science
291: 889–894,
2001.
Ghazanfar AA, Krupa DJ, and Nicolelis MAL. Role of cortical feedback in the receptive field structure and nonlinear response properties of somatosensory thalamic neurons. Exp Brain Res 141: 88–100, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
Giraudet P,
Berthommier F, and Chaput M. Mitral cell temporal response patterns evoked
by odor mixtures in the rat olfactory bulb. J
Neurophysiol 88:
829–838, 2002.
Grajski KA and Freeman WJ. Spatial EEG correlates of nonassociative and associative olfactory learning in rabbits. Behav Neurosci 103: 790–804, 1989.[ISI][Medline]
Granger R and Lynch G. Higher olfactory processes: perceptual learning and memory. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1: 209–214, 1991.[Medline]
Gray CM and Skinner JE. Centrifugal regulation of neuronal activity in the olfactory bulb of the waking rabbit as revealed by reversible cryogenic blockade. Exp Brain Res 69: 378–386, 1988.[ISI][Medline]
Guthrie KM,
Anderson AJ, Leon M, and Gall C. Odor-induced increases in c-fos mRNA
expression reveal an anatomical "unit" for odor processing in
olfactory bulb. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
90: 3329–3333,
1993.
Haberly LB.
Parallel-distributed processing in olfactory cortex: new insights from
morphological and physiological analysis of neuronal circuitry.
Chem Senses 26:
551–576, 2001.
Hasselmo ME,
Anderson BP, and Bower JM. Cholinergic modulation of cortical associative
memory function. J Neurophysiol
67: 1230–1246,
1992.
Hasselmo ME and
Barkai E. Cholinergic modulation of activity-dependent synaptic plasticity
in the piriform cortex and associative memory function in a network
biophysical simulation. J Neurosci
15: 6592–6604,
1995.
Hasselmo ME, Wilson MA, Anderson BP, and Bower JM. Associative memory function in piriform (olfactory) cortex: computational modeling and neuropharmacology. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 55: 599–610, 1990.[Medline]
Illig KR and Haberly LB. Odor-evoked activity is spatially distributed in piriform cortex. J Comp Neurol 457: 361–373, 2003.[ISI][Medline]
Johnson DMG,
Illig KR, Behan M, and Haberly LB. New features of connectivity in
piriform cortex visualized by intracellular injection of pyramidal cells
suggests that "primary" olfactory cortex functions like
"association" cortex in other sensory systems. J
Neurosci 20:
6974–6982, 2000.
Johnson BA, Woo CC, and Leon M. Spatial coding of odorant features in the glomerular layer of the rat olfactory bulb. J Comp Neurol 393: 457–471, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
Jung MW, Larson J, and Lynch G. Long-term potentiation of monosynaptic EPSPs in rat piriform cortex in vitro. Synapse 6: 279–283, 1990.[ISI][Medline]
Kanter ED and Haberly LB. NMDA-dependent induction of long-term potentiation in afferent and association fiber systems of piriform cortex in vitro. Brain Res 525: 175–179, 1990.[ISI][Medline]
Kashiwadani H,
Sasaki YF, Uchida N, and Mori K. Synchronized oscillatory discharges of
mitral/tufted cells with different molecular receptive ranges in the rabbit
olfactory bulb. J Neurophysiol
82: 1786–1792,
1999.
Kay LM and Freeman WJ. Bidirectional processing in the olfactory-limbic axis during olfactory behavior. Behav Neurosci 112: 541–553, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
Laing DG, Legha
PK, Jinks AL, and Hutchinson I. Relationship between molecular structure,
concentration, and odor qualities of oxygenated aliphatic molecules.
Chem Senses 28:
57–69, 2003.
Laurent G, Stopfer M, Friedrich RW, Rabinovich MI, Volkovskii A, and Abarbanel HD. Odor encoding as an active, dynamical process: experiments, computations, and theory. Annu Rev Neurosci 24: 263–297, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
Linster C,
Johnson BA, Morse A, Yue E, and Leon M. Spontaneous versus reinforced
olfactory discriminations. J Neurosci
22: 6842–6845,
2002.
Linster C,
Wyble BP, and Hasselmo ME. Electrical stimulation of the horizontal limb
of the diagonal band of Broca modulates population EPSPs in piriform cortex.
J Neurophysiol 81:
2737–2742, 1999.
Litaudon P, Mouly AM, Sullivan R, Gervais R, and Cattarelli M. Learning-induced changes in rat piriform cortex activity mapped using multisite recording with voltage-sensitive dye. Eur J Neurosci 9: 1593–1602, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
Livermore A and Laing DG. Influence of training and experience on the perception of multicomponent odor mixtures. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22: 267–277, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
Luo M and Katz LC. Response correlation maps of neurons in the mammalian olfactory bulb. Neuron 32: 1165–1179, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
Mair R, Capra C, McEntree WJ, and Engen T. Odor discrimination and memory in Korsakoff's psychosis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 6: 433–458, 1980.[ISI][Medline]
McCollum J, Larson J, Otto T, Schottler F, Granger R, and Lynch G. Short-latency single-unit processing in olfactory cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 3: 293–299, 1991.
Miyashita Y and Hayashi T. Neural representation of visual objects: encoding and top-down activation. Curr Opin Neurobiol 10: 187–194, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
Mori K, Nagao
H, and Yoshihara Y. The olfactory bulb: coding and processing of odor
molecule information. Science
286: 711–715,
1999.
Murphy PC,
Duckett SG, and Sillito AM. Feedback connections to the lateral geniculate
nucleus and cortical response properties. Science
286: 1552–1554,
1999.
Ojima H, Mori K, and Kishi K. The trajectory of mitral cell axons in the rabbit olfactory cortex revealed by intracellular HRP injection. J Comp Neurol 230: 77–87, 1984.[ISI][Medline]
Patil MM,
Linster C, Lubenov E, and Hasselmo ME. Cholinergic agonist carbachol
enables associative long-term potentiation in piriform cortex slices.
J Neurophysiol 80:
2467–2474, 1998.
Potter H and Chorover SL. Response plasticity in hamster olfactory bulb: peripheral and central processes. Brain Res 116: 417–429, 1976.[ISI][Medline]
Ravel N, Chabaud P, Martin C, Gaveau V, Hugues E, Tallon-Baudry C, Bertrand O, and Gervais R. Olfactory learning modifies the expression of odor-induced oscillatory responses in the gamma (60–90 Hz) and beta (15–40 Hz) bands in the rat olfactory bulb. Eur J Neurosci 17: 350–358, 2003.[ISI][Medline]
Rolls ET. Functions of the primate temporal lobe cortical visual areas in invariant visual object and face recognition. Neuron 27: 205–218, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
Roman F, Staubli U, and Lynch G. Evidence for synaptic potentiation in a cortical network during learning. Brain Res 418: 221–226, 1987.[ISI][Medline]
Rubin BD and Katz LC. Optical imaging of odorant representations in the mammalian olfactory bulb. Neuron 23: 499–511, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
Saar D,
Grossman Y, and Barkai E. Learning-induced enhancement of postsynaptic
potentials in pyramidal neurons. J Neurophysiol
87: 2358–2363,
2002.
Spors H and Grinvald A. Spatio-temporal dynamics of odor representations in the mammalian olfactory bulb. Neuron 234: 301–315, 2002.
Stevenson RJ. Associative learning and odor quality perception: how sniffing an odor mixture can alter the smell of its parts. Learn Motiv 32: 154–177, 2001.
Stopfer M, Bhagavan S, Smith BH, and Laurent G. Impaired odour discrimination on desynchronization of odor-encoding neural assemblies. Nature 390: 70–74, 1997.[Medline]
Stopfer M and Laurent G. Short-term memory in olfactory network dynamics. Nature 402: 664–668, 1999.[Medline]
Stripling JS, Patneau DK, and Gramlich CA. Characterization and anatomical distribution of selective long-term potentiation in the olfactory forebrain. Brain Res 542: 107–122, 1991.[ISI][Medline]
Tanaka K. Mechanisms of visual object recognition studied in monkeys. Spatial Vision 13: 147–163, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
Tovee MJ, Rolls ET, and Ramachandran VS. Rapid visual learning in neurones of the primate temporal visual cortex. Neuroreport 7: 2757–2760, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
Wilson DA.
Habituation of odor responses in the rat anterior piriform cortex.
J Neurophysiol 79:
1425–1440, 1998a.
Wilson DA.
Synaptic correlates of odor habituation in the rat anterior piriform cortex.
J Neurophysiol 80:
998–1001, 1998b.
Wilson DA.
Odor specificity of habituation in the rat anterior piriform cortex.
J Neurophysiol 83:
139–145, 2000a.
Wilson DA.
A comparison of odor receptive field plasticity in the rat olfactory bulb and
anterior piriform cortex. J Neurophysiol
84: 3036–3042,
2000b.
Wilson DA.
Scopolamine enhances generalization between odor representations in rat
olfactory cortex. Learn Mem 8:
279–285, 2001a.
Wilson DA.
Receptive fields in the rat piriform cortex. Chem
Senses 26:
577–584, 2001b.
Wilson DA and Stevenson RJ. The fundamental role of memory in olfactory perception. Trends Neurosci 26: 243–247, 2003.[ISI][Medline]
Yokoi M, Mori
K, and Nakanishi S. Refinement of odor molecule tuning by dendrodendritic
synaptic inhibition in the olfactory bulb. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 92:
3371–3375, 1995.
Zou Z, Horowitz LF, Montmayeur JP, Snapper S, and Buck LB. Genetic tracing reveals a stereotyped sensory map in the olfactory cortex. Nature 414: 173–179, 2001.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. A. Wilson and C. Linster Neurobiology of a Simple Memory J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2008; 100(1): 2 - 7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Cohen, I. Reuveni, E. Barkai, and M. Maroun Olfactory Learning-Induced Long-Lasting Enhancement of Descending and Ascending Synaptic Transmission to the Piriform Cortex J. Neurosci., June 25, 2008; 28(26): 6664 - 6669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. V. Jones, L. Stanek-Rattiner, M. Davis, and K. J. Ressler Differential regional expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor following olfactory fear learning Learn. Mem., December 17, 2007; 14(12): 816 - 820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. GOTTFRIED What Can an Orbitofrontal Cortex-Endowed Animal Do with Smells? Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., December 1, 2007; 1121(1): 102 - 120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Khan, C.-H. Luk, A. Flinker, A. Aggarwal, H. Lapid, R. Haddad, and N. Sobel Predicting Odor Pleasantness from Odorant Structure: Pleasantness as a Reflection of the Physical World J. Neurosci., September 12, 2007; 27(37): 10015 - 10023. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Yoshida and K. Mori Odorant Category Profile Selectivity of Olfactory Cortex Neurons J. Neurosci., August 22, 2007; 27(34): 9105 - 9114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Calu, M. R. Roesch, T. A. Stalnaker, and G. Schoenbaum Associative Encoding in Posterior Piriform Cortex during Odor Discrimination and Reversal Learning Cereb Cortex, June 1, 2007; 17(6): 1342 - 1349. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. P. Ferrer and R. K. Zimmer The scent of danger: arginine as an olfactory cue of reduced predation risk J. Exp. Biol., May 15, 2007; 210(10): 1768 - 1775. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. L. Rennaker, C.-F. F. Chen, A. M. Ruyle, A. M. Sloan, and D. A. Wilson Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Odorant-Evoked Activity in the Piriform Cortex J. Neurosci., February 14, 2007; 27(7): 1534 - 1542. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
