Unraveling the mechanisms of deep-brain stimulation of the internal capsule in a mouse model.

Deep-brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective treatment for patients suffering from otherwise therapy-resistant psychiatric disorders, including obsessive-compulsive disorder. Modulation of cortico-striatal circuits has been suggested as a mechanism of action. To gain mechanistic insight, we monitored neuronal activity in cortico-striatal regions in a mouse model for compulsive behavior, while systematically varying clinically-relevant parameters of internal-capsule DBS. DBS showed dose-dependent effects on both brain and behavior: An increasing, yet balanced, number of excited and inhibited neurons was recruited, scattered throughout cortico-striatal regions, while excessive grooming decreased. Such neuronal recruitment did not alter basic brain function such as resting-state activity, and only occurred in awake animals, indicating a dependency on network activity. In addition to these widespread effects, we observed specific involvement of the medial orbitofrontal cortex in therapeutic outcomes, which was corroborated by optogenetic stimulation. Together, our findings provide mechanistic insight into how DBS exerts its therapeutic effects on compulsive behaviors.

The essential role of recurrent processing for figure-ground perception in mice.

The segregation of figures from the background is an important step in visual perception. In primary visual cortex, figures evoke stronger activity than backgrounds during a delayed phase of the neuronal responses, but it is unknown how this figure-ground modulation (FGM) arises and whether it is necessary for perception. Here, we show, using optogenetic silencing in mice, that the delayed V1 response phase is necessary for figure-ground segregation. Neurons in higher visual areas also exhibit FGM and optogenetic silencing of higher areas reduced FGM in V1. In V1, figures elicited higher activity of vasoactive intestinal peptide-expressing (VIP) interneurons than the background, whereas figures suppressed somatostatin-positive interneurons, resulting in an increased activation of pyramidal cells. Optogenetic silencing of VIP neurons reduced FGM in V1, indicating that disinhibitory circuits contribute to FGM. Our results provide insight into how lower and higher areas of the visual cortex interact to shape visual perception.

Mouse visual cortex contains a region of enhanced spatial resolution.

The representation of space in mouse visual cortex was thought to be relatively uniform. Here we reveal, using population receptive-field (pRF) mapping techniques, that mouse visual cortex contains a region in which pRFs are considerably smaller. This region, the "focea," represents a location in space in front of, and slightly above, the mouse. Using two-photon imaging we show that the smaller pRFs are due to lower scatter of receptive-fields at the focea and an over-representation of binocular regions of space. We show that receptive-fields of single-neurons in areas LM and AL are smaller at the focea and that mice have improved visual resolution in this region of space. Furthermore, freely moving mice make compensatory eye-movements to hold this region in front of them. Our results indicate that mice have spatial biases in their visual processing, a finding that has important implications for the use of the mouse model of vision.

Activity in Lateral Visual Areas Contributes to Surround Suppression in Awake Mouse V1.

Neuronal response to sensory stimuli depends on the context. The response in primary visual cortex (V1), for instance, is reduced when a stimulus is surrounded by a similar stimulus [1-3]. The source of this surround suppression is partially known. In mouse, local horizontal integration by somatostatin-expressing interneurons contributes to surround suppression [4]. In primates, however, surround suppression arises too quickly to come from local horizontal integration alone, and myelinated axons from higher visual areas, where cells have larger receptive fields, are thought to provide additional surround suppression [5, 6]. Silencing higher visual areas indeed decreased surround suppression in the awake primate by increasing responses to large stimuli [7, 8], although not under anesthesia [9, 10]. In smaller mammals, like mice, fast surround suppression could be possible without feedback. Recent studies revealed a small reduction in V1 responses when silencing higher areas [11, 12] but have not investigated surround suppression. To determine whether higher visual areas contribute to V1 surround suppression, even when this is not necessary for fast processing, we inhibited the areas lateral to V1, particularly the lateromedial area (LM), a possible homolog of primate V2 [13], while recording in V1 of awake and anesthetized mice. We found that part of the surround suppression depends on activity from lateral visual areas in the awake, but not anesthetized, mouse. Inhibiting the lateral visual areas specifically increased responses in V1 to large stimuli. We present a model explaining how excitatory feedback to V1 can have these suppressive effects for large stimuli.

Orientation-tuned surround suppression in mouse visual cortex.

The firing rates of neurons in primary visual cortex (V1) are suppressed by large stimuli, an effect known as surround suppression. In cats and monkeys, the strength of suppression is sensitive to orientation; responses to regions containing uniform orientations are more suppressed than those containing orientation contrast. This effect is thought to be important for scene segmentation, but the underlying neural mechanisms are poorly understood. We asked whether it is possible to study these mechanisms in the visual cortex of mice, because of recent advances in technology for studying the cortical circuitry in mice. It is unknown whether neurons in mouse V1 are sensitive to orientation contrast. We measured the orientation selectivity of surround suppression in the different layers of mouse V1. We found strong surround suppression in layer 4 and the superficial layers, part of which was orientation tuned: iso-oriented surrounds caused more suppression than cross-oriented surrounds. Surround suppression was delayed relative to the visual response and orientation-tuned suppression was delayed further, suggesting two separate suppressive mechanisms. Previous studies proposed that surround suppression depends on the activity of inhibitory somatostatin-positive interneurons in the superficial layers. To test the involvement of the superficial layers we topically applied lidocaine. Silencing of the superficial layers did not prevent orientation-tuned suppression in layer 4. These results show that neurons in mouse V1, which lacks orientation columns, show orientation-dependent surround suppression in layer 4 and the superficial layers and that surround suppression in layer 4 does not require contributions from neurons in the superficial layers.