Nerve cells key to making sense of our senses

The human brain is bombarded with a cacophony of information from the eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin. Now a team of scientists at the University of Rochester, Washington University in St. Louis, and Baylor College of Medicine has unraveled how the brain manages to process those complex, rapidly changing, and often conflicting sensory signals to make sense of our world.

The answer lies in a relatively simple computation performed by single , an operation that can be described mathematically as a straightforward weighted average. The key is that the neurons have to apply the correct weights to each sensory cue, and the authors reveal how this is done.

The study, to be published online Nov. 20 in , represents the first direct evidence of how the brain combines multiple sources of sensory information to form as accurate a perception as possible of its environment, the researchers report.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Click on the video above to see how the dots create a sense of moving forward straight ahead, to the right, and to the left. Credit: University of Rochester

The discovery may eventually lead to new therapies for people with Alzheimer's disease and other disorders that impair a person's sense of self-motion, says study coauthor Greg DeAngelis, professor and chair of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester. This deeper understanding of how combine different sensory cues could also help scientists and engineers to design more sophisticated artificial nervous systems such as those used in robots, he adds.

The brain is constantly confronted with changing and conflicting , says DeAngelis. For example, during IMAX theater footage of an aircraft rolling into a turn "you may find yourself grabbing the seat," he says. The large makes you feel like you are moving, but the balance cues conveyed by sensors in your indicate that your body is in fact safely glued to the theater seat. So how does your brain decide how to interpret these conflicting inputs?

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This video shows how adding randomly moving dots, or visual “noise,” makes visual motion cues much harder for your brain to interpret, until the noise is removed toward the end of the video. Using segments of these animations, the study found that individual neurons are responsible for the brain’s complex ability to shift between different sensory signals depending on which are more reliable. Credit: University of Rochester

The study shows that the brain does not have to first "decide" which sensory cue is more reliable. "Indeed, this is what's exciting about what we have shown," says DeAngelis. The study demonstrates that the low-level computations performed by single neurons in the brain, when repeated by millions of neurons performing similar computations, accounts for the brain's complex ability to know which to weight as more important. "Thus, the brain essentially can break down a seemingly high-level behavioral task into a set of much simpler operations performed simultaneously by many neurons," explains DeAngelis.

The study confirms and extends a computational theory developed earlier by brain and cognitive scientist Alexandre Pouget at the University of Rochester and the University of Geneva, Switzerland and a coauthor on the paper. The theory predicted that neurons fire in a manner predicted by a weighted summation rule, which was largely confirmed by the neural data. Surprisingly, however, the weights that the neurons learned were slightly off target from the theoretical predictions, and the difference could explain why behavior also varies slightly from subject to subject, the authors conclude. "Being able to predict these small discrepancies establishes an exciting connection between computations performed at the level of single neurons and detailed aspects of behavior," says DeAngelis.

To gather the data, the researchers designed a virtual-reality system to present subjects with two directional cues, a visual pattern of moving dots on a computer screen to simulate traveling forward and physical movement of the subject created by a platform. The researchers varied the amount of randomness in the motion of the dots to change how reliable the visual cues were relative to the motion of the platform. At the end of each trial, subjects indicated which direction they were heading, to the right or to the left.

Related Stories

Picower research finds unexpected activity in visual cortex

Mar 16, 2006

For years, neural activity in the brain's visual cortex was thought to have only one job: to create visual perceptions. A new study by researchers at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory shows that visual cortical ...

Our unconscious brain makes the best decisions possible

Dec 24, 2008

Researchers at the University of Rochester have shown that the human brain—once thought to be a seriously flawed decision maker—is actually hard-wired to allow us to make the best decisions possible with the information ...

Research shows how sensory-deprived brain compensates

Apr 17, 2007

Whiskers provide a mouse with essential information to negotiate a burrow or detect movement that could signal a predator's presence. These stiff hairs relay sensory input to the brain, which shapes neuronal activity. In ...

Recommended for you

Optogenetics has 'completely changed neuroscience'

6 hours ago

It's getting harder to find the line between science and science fiction. One of the hot research techniques these days, "optogenetics," uses gene therapy to deliver light-sensitive proteins to specific cells. Then researchers ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hush1
not rated yet Nov 20, 2011
The study confirms and extends a computational theory developed earlier by brain and cognitive scientist Alexandre Pouget at the University of Rochester and the University of Geneva, Switzerland and a coauthor on the paper. - UoR


http://www.nature...371.html
TS1
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
Does this mean that an individual nerve cell is not necessarily a particularly powerful supercomputer? Or how powerful are they?