Effect of choice difficulty on local field potentials in Frontal Eye Field of nonhuman primates

Jacob A. Westerberg1,2, Paul G. Middlebrooks1 & Jeffrey D. Schall1

1Psychology Department, Vanderbilt University & 2Neuroscience Program, St. Olaf College

Support: F32-EY023526-01A1, R01-MH055806, P30-EY008126,P30-HD015052 and Robin and Richard Patton through the E.Bronson Ingram Chair in Neuroscience at Vanderbilt University.

EvokedSignals TargetEpoch ChoiceEpoch ResponseEpoch

mV

Time(ms)

TargetEpoch ChoiceEpoch ResponseEpoch

HighGam

maPo

wer

(60-120Hz

)LowGam

maPo

wer

(30-60Hz)

BetaPow

er(15-30Hz)

Time(ms) Time(ms)

Datafrom1macaque:n=23sessions,3,576trials

Time(ms) Time(ms) Time(ms)

Ln(normalized(am

plitude^2))*-1

v Neither evoked nor frequency specific (Beta, LowGamma, High Gamma) LFP power modulated aschoice difficulty varied.

v The three choice difficulties did not have significantlydifferent primary power-contributing componentswithin each frequency band.

v Modulation of FEF LFP power is not necessary indecision-making.

Future Directions: Record LFPs from multiple sites in FEFsimultaneously and perform synchrony analyses todetermine whether coherence between sites varies with choicedifficulty.

Freq

uencySpecificPo

werNeural correlates of response inhibition and categorical

choice have been reported in macaque Frontal Eye Field(FEF). We sought to determine whether stopping and choiceare implemented by separate or overlapping pools ofneurons. Consequently, the task design and techniqueallowed for the recording of local field potentials (LFPs)during decision-making. Here we examine whether FEFLFPs represent variations in choice difficulty during taskperformance.

*dottedlinesdepict95%confidenceintervalsforcorrespondingchoicedifficulty

Prim

aryFreq

uencySpecific,Pow

er-

Contrib

utingCo

mpo

nent

BetaPow

er(15-30Hz)

LowGam

maPo

wer

(30-60Hz)

HighGam

maPo

wer

(60-120Hz

)