Search

Gain modulation of neuronal responses is widely observed in the cerebral cortex of both anesthetized and behaving animals. Does this multiplicative effect on neuronal tuning curves require underlying multiplicative mechanisms of integration? We compare the effects of a divisive mechanism of inhibition (noisy excitatory and inhibitory synaptic inputs) with the effects of two subtractive mechanisms (shunting conductance and hyperpolarizing current) on the tuning curves of a model cortical neuron. We find that, although the effects of subtractive inhibition can appear nonlinear, they are accompanied by a change in response threshold and are best described as a vertical shift along the response axis. Increasing noisy synaptic activity divisively scales the model responses, reproducing a response-gain control effect. When mutual inhibition between subpopulations of local neurons is included, the model exhibits a gain modulation effect that is better described as input-gain control. We apply these findings to experimental data by examining how noisy synaptic input may underlie divisive surround suppression and attention-driven gain modulation of neuronal responses in the visual system.

The role of background synaptic activity in cortical processing has recently received much attention. How do individual neurons extract information when embedded in a noisy background? When examining the impact of a synaptic input on postsynaptic firing, it is important to distinguish a change in overall firing probability from a true change in neuronal sensitivity to a particular input (synaptic efficacy) that corresponds to a change in detection performance. Here we study the impact of background synaptic input on neuronal sensitivity to individual synaptic inputs using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. We use the area under the ROC curve as a measure of synaptic efficacy, here defined as the ability of a postsynaptic action potential to identify a particular synaptic input event. An advantage of using ROC analysis to measure synaptic efficacy is that it provides a measure that is independent of postsynaptic firing rate. Furthermore, changes in mean excitation or inhibition, although affecting overall firing probability, do not modulate synaptic efficacy when measured in this way. Changes in overall conductance also affect firing probability but not this form of synaptic efficacy. Input noise, here defined as the variance of the input current, does modulate synaptic efficacy, however. This effect persists when the change in input variance is coupled with a change in conductance (as would result from changing background activity).