Search

Slow gamma oscillations (20–50 Hz) have been suggested to coordinate information transfer between brain structures involved in memory formation. Whereas the involvement of slow gamma in memory processing was studied by means of correlation between the gamma power and the occurrence of a given event (sharp wave ripples (SWRs), cortical transients), our approach consists of the analysis of the transmission of slow gamma itself. We use the method based on Granger causality principle—direct Directed Transfer Function, which allows to determine directed propagation of brain activity, including bidirectional flows. Four cortical sites along with CA1 ipsi- and contralateral were recorded in behaving wild-type and APP/PS1 mice before and after learning session of a spatial memory task. During slow wave sleep propagation of slow gamma was bidirectional, forming multiple loops of interaction which involved both CA1 and some of cortical sites. In episodes coincident with SWRs the number and strength of connectivity pathways increased in both groups compared to episodes without SWRs. The effect of learning was expressed only in APP/PS1 mice and consisted in strengthening of the slow gamma transmission from hippocampus to cortex as well as between both CA1 which may serve more efficient transmission of information from impaired CA1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence indicates that sharp-wave ripples (SWRs) are primary network events supporting memory processes. However, some studies demonstrate that even after disruption of awake SWRs the animal can still learn spatial task or that SWRs may be not necessary to establish a cognitive map of the environment. Moreover, we have found recently that despite a deficit of sleep SWRs the APP/PS1 mice, a model of Alzheimer's disease, show undisturbed spatial reference memory. Searching for a learning-related alteration of SWRs that could account for the efficiency of memory in these mice we use convolutional neural networks (CNN) to discriminate pre- and post-learning 256 ms samples of LFP signals, containing individual SWRs. We found that the fraction of samples that were correctly recognized by CNN in majority of discrimination sessions was equal to ~ 50% in the wild-type (WT) and only 14% in APP/PS1 mice. Moreover, removing signals generated in a close vicinity of SWRs significantly diminished the number of such highly recognizable samples in the WT but not in APP/PS1 group. These results indicate that in WT animals a large subset of SWRs and signals generated in their proximity may contain learning-related information whereas such information seem to be limited in the AD mice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]