JN Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (January 23, 2008). doi:10.1152/jn.00343.2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/5/2672    most recent
00343.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Czanner, G.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, E. N
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Czanner, G.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, E. N
Submitted on March 27, 2007
Accepted on January 17, 2008

ANALYSIS OF BETWEEN-TRIAL AND WITHIN-TRIAL NEURAL SPIKING DYNAMICS

Gabriela Czanner1*, Uri Tzvi Eden2, Sylvia Wirth3, Marianna Yanike, Wendy A Suzuki4, and Emery N Brown5

1 Warwick Manufacturing Group and Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, Massachusetts, United Kingdom
2 Mathematics and Statistics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
3 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut des Sciences Cognitives, Bron, France
4 CNS, New York University, New York, New York, United States
5 Anesthesia and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: gabika71{at}yahoo.com.

Recording single neuron activity from a specific brain region across multiple trials in response to the same stimulus or execution of the same behavioral task is a common neurophysiology protocol. The raster plots of the spike trains often show strong between-trial and within-trial dynamics, yet the standard analysis of these data with the peristimulus time histogram (PSTH) and ANOVA do not consider between-trial dynamics. By itself, the PSTH does not provide a framework for statistical inference. We present a state-space generalized linear model (SS-GLM) to formulate a point process representation of between-trial and within-trial neural spiking dynamics. Our model has the PSTH as a special case. We provide a framework for model estimation, model selection, goodness-of-fit analysis and inference. In an analysis of hippocampal neural activity recorded from a monkey performing a location-scene association task, we demonstrate how the SS-GLM may be used to answer frequently posed neurophysiological questions including: What is the nature of the between-trial and within-trial task-specific modulation of the neural spiking activity? How can we characterize learning-related neural dynamics? What are the time-scales and characteristics of the neuron's biophysical properties? Our results demonstrate that the SS-GLM is a more informative tool than the PSTH and ANOVA for analysis of multiple trial neural responses and that provides a quantitative characterization of the between-trial and within-trial neural dynamics readily visible in raster plots, as well as the less apparent fast (1-10 ms), intermediate (11-20 ms) and longer (> 20 ms) time-scale features of the neuron's biophysical properties.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
B. M. Yu, J. P. Cunningham, G. Santhanam, S. I. Ryu, K. V. Shenoy, and M. Sahani
Gaussian-Process Factor Analysis for Low-Dimensional Single-Trial Analysis of Neural Population Activity
J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2009; 102(1): 614 - 635.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the The American Physiological Society.