Manipulating memory with light

Just look into the light: not quite, but researchers at the UC Davis Center for Neuroscience and Department of Psychology have used light to erase specific memories in mice, and proved a basic theory of how different parts of the brain work together to retrieve episodic memories.

Optogenetics, pioneered by Karl Diesseroth at Stanford University, is a new technique for manipulating and studying nerve cells using light. The techniques of optogenetics are rapidly becoming the standard method for investigating brain function.

Kazumasa Tanaka, Brian Wiltgen and colleagues at UC Davis applied the technique to test a long-standing idea about memory retrieval. For about 40 years, Wiltgen said, neuroscientists have theorized that retrieving episodic memories — memories about specific places and events — involves coordinated activity between the cerebral cortex and the hippocampus, a small structure deep in the brain.

"The theory is that learning involves processing in the cortex, and the hippocampus reproduces this pattern of activity during retrieval, allowing you to re-experience the event," Wiltgen said. If the hippocampus is damaged, patients can lose decades of memories.

But this model has been difficult to test directly, until the arrival of optogenetics.

Wiltgen and Tanaka used mice genetically modified so that when nerve cells are activated, they both fluoresce green and express a protein that allows the cells to be switched off by light. They were therefore able both to follow exactly which nerve cells in the cortex and hippocampus were activated in learning and memory retrieval, and switch them off with light directed through a fiber-optic cable.

They trained the mice by placing them in a cage where they got a mild electric shock. Normally, mice placed in a new environment will nose around and explore. But when placed in a cage where they have previously received a shock, they freeze in place in a “fear response.”

Tanaka and Wiltgen first showed that they could label the cells involved in learning and demonstrate that they were reactivated during memory recall. Then they were able to switch off the specific nerve cells in the hippocampus, and show that the mice lost their memories of the unpleasant event. They were also able to show that turning off other cells in the hippocampus did not affect retrieval of that memory, and to follow fibers from the hippocampus to specific cells in the cortex.

"The cortex can’t do it alone, it needs input from the hippocampus," Wiltgen said. "This has been a fundamental assumption in our field for a long time and Kazu’s data provides the first direct evidence that it is true."

They could also see how the specific cells in the cortex were connected to the amygdala, a structure in the brain that is involved in emotion and in generating the freezing response.

(Image caption: Archer1 fluorescence in a cultured rat hippocampal neuron. By monitoring changes in this fluorescence at up to a thousand frames per second, researchers can track the electrical activity of the cell. Credit: Nicholas Flytzanis, Claire Bedbrook and Viviana Gradinaru/Caltech)

Sensing Neuronal Activity With Light

For years, neuroscientists have been trying to develop tools that would allow them to clearly view the brain’s circuitry in action—from the first moment a neuron fires to the resulting behavior in a whole organism. To get this complete picture, neuroscientists are working to develop a range of new tools to study the brain. Researchers at Caltech have developed one such tool that provides a new way of mapping neural networks in a living organism.

The work—a collaboration between Viviana Gradinaru (BS ‘05), assistant professor of biology and biological engineering, and Frances Arnold, the Dick and Barbara Dickinson Professor of Chemical Engineering, Bioengineering and Biochemistry—was described in two separate papers published this month.

When a neuron is at rest, channels and pumps in the cell membrane maintain a cell-specific balance of positively and negatively charged ions within and outside of the cell resulting in a steady membrane voltage called the cell’s resting potential. However, if a stimulus is detected—for example, a scent or a sound—ions flood through newly open channels causing a change in membrane voltage. This voltage change is often manifested as an action potential—the neuronal impulse that sets circuit activity into motion.

The tool developed by Gradinaru and Arnold detects and serves as a marker of these voltage changes.

"Our overarching goal for this tool was to achieve sensing of neuronal activity with light rather than traditional electrophysiology, but this goal had a few prerequisites," Gradinaru says. "The sensor had to be fast, since action potentials happen in just milliseconds. Also, the sensor had to be very bright so that the signal could be detected with existing microscopy setups. And you need to be able to simultaneously study the multiple neurons that make up a neural network."

The researchers began by optimizing Archaerhodopsin (Arch), a light-sensitive protein from bacteria. In nature, opsins like Arch detect sunlight and initiate the microbes’ movement toward the light so that they can begin photosynthesis. However, researchers can also exploit the light-responsive qualities of opsins for a neuroscience method called optogenetics—in which an organism’s neurons are genetically modified to express these microbial opsins. Then, by simply shining a light on the modified neurons, the researchers can control the activity of the cells as well as their associated behaviors in the organism.

Gradinaru had previously engineered Arch for better tolerance and performance in mammalian cells as a traditional optogenetic tool used to control an organism’s behavior with light. When the modified neurons are exposed to green light, Arch acts as an inhibitor, controlling neuronal activity—and thus the associated behaviors—by preventing the neurons from firing.

However, Gradinaru and Arnold were most interested in another property of Arch: when exposed to red light, the protein acts as a voltage sensor, responding to changes in membrane voltages by producing a flash of light in the presence of an action potential. Although this property could in principle allow Arch to detect the activity of networks of neurons, the light signal marking this neuronal activity was often too dim to see.

To fix this problem, Arnold and her colleagues made the Arch protein brighter using a method called directed evolution—a technique Arnold originally pioneered in the early 1990s. The researchers introduced mutations into the Arch gene, thus encoding millions of variants of the protein. They transferred the mutated genes into E. coli cells, which produced the mutant proteins encoded by the genes. They then screened thousands of the resulting E. coli colonies for the intensities of their fluorescence. The genes for the brightest versions were isolated and subjected to further rounds of mutagenesis and screening until the bacteria produced proteins that were 20 times brighter than the original Arch protein.

A paper describing the process and the bright new protein variants that were created was published in the September 9 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

"This experiment demonstrates how rapidly these remarkable bacterial proteins can evolve in response to new demands. But even more exciting is what they can do in neurons, as Viviana discovered," says Arnold.

In a separate study led by Gradinaru’s graduate students Nicholas Flytzanis and Claire Bedbrook, who is also advised by Arnold, the researchers genetically incorporated the new, brighter Arch variants into rodent neurons in culture to see which of these versions was most sensitive to voltage changes—and therefore would be the best at detecting action potentials. One variant, Archer1, was not only bright and sensitive enough to mark action potentials in mammalian neurons in real time, it could also be used to identify which neurons were synaptically connected—and communicating with one another—in a circuit.

The work is described in a study published on September 15 in the journal Nature Communications.

"What was interesting is that we would see two cells over here light up, but not this one over there—because the first two are synaptically connected," Gradinaru says. "This tool gave us a way to observe a network where the perturbation of one cell affects another."

However, sensing activity in a living organism and correlating this activity with behavior remained the biggest challenge. To accomplish this goal Gradinaru’s team worked with Paul Sternberg, the Thomas Hunt Morgan Professor of Biology, to test Archer1 as a sensor in a living organism—the tiny nematode worm C. elegans. “There are a few reasons why we used the worms here: they are powerful organisms for quick genetic engineering and their tissues are nearly transparent, making it easy to see the fluorescent protein in a living animal,” she says.

After incorporating Archer1 into neurons that were a part of the worm’s olfactory system—a primary source of sensory information for C. elegans—the researchers exposed the worm to an odorant. When the odorant was present, a baseline fluorescent signal was seen, and when the odorant was removed, the researchers could see the circuit of neurons light up, meaning that these particular neurons are repressed in the presence of the stimulus and active in the absence of the stimulus. The experiment was the first time that an Arch variant had been used to observe an active circuit in a living organism.

Gradinaru next hopes to use tools like Archer1 to better understand the complex neuronal networks of mammals, using microbial opsins as sensing and actuating tools in optogenetically modified rodents.

"For the future work it’s useful that this tool is bifunctional. Although Archer1 acts as a voltage sensor under red light, with green light, it’s an inhibitor," she says. "And so now a long-term goal for our optogenetics experiments is to combine the tools with behavior-controlling properties and the tools with voltage-sensing properties. This would allow us to obtain all-optical access to neuronal circuits. But I think there is still a lot of work ahead."

One goal for the future, Gradinaru says, is to make Archer1 even brighter. Although the protein’s fluorescence can be seen through the nearly transparent tissues of the nematode worm, opaque organs such as the mammalian brain are still a challenge. More work, she says, will need to be done before Archer1 could be used to detect voltage changes in the neurons of living, behaving mammals.

And that will require further collaborations with protein engineers and biochemists like Arnold.

"As neuroscientists we often encounter experimental barriers, which open the potential for new methods. We then collaborate to generate tools through chemistry or instrumentation, then we validate them and suggest optimizations, and it just keeps going," she says. "There are a few things that we’d like to be better, and through these many iterations and hard work it can happen."

The interactive brain

Neuroscientist explores mechanism that can cause deficit in working memory

Amy Griffin, associate professor of psychological and brain sciences at the University of Delaware, has received a five-year, $1.78 million grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to support her research into the brain mechanisms of working memory.

A neuroscientist, Griffin has been interested for some time in the interaction between the prefrontal cortex, located at the front of the brain, and the hippocampus, a region in the temporal lobe of the brain. When the two areas fail to work together, that failure appears to be correlated with deficits in working memory, a condition that commonly occurs in schizophrenia, general anxiety and other psychiatric disorders.

The hippocampus is the portion of the brain responsible for memory, while the prefrontal cortex controls executive function, a term that includes such cognitive abilities as problem-solving, planning and abstract thinking.

“These are two areas of the brain that are far apart, but their oscillations [rhythmic activities] are synchronized,” Griffin said. “When one area is active, so is the other.”

Working memory, sometimes called short-term memory, is “the kind of memory that fails when you walk into a room and forget why you came there,” she said.

When the oscillations in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex are out of sync, deficits of working memory occur. In those cases, Griffin said, “both regions are active, but they’re not talking to each other.” The mechanism that causes that lack of communication has not been well explored, and her research will seek to do that.

Griffin and her research team plan to conduct two types of experiments. One will inhibit activity in a brain region called the nucleus reuniens, a region that is hypothesized to synchronize the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex and is expected to cause impairments with working memory. In the other experiment, researchers will activate the nucleus reuniens to increase synchrony, hoping to learn if that improves working memory.

The research will employ a cutting-edge technique called optogenetics, a process that uses proteins to make neurons sensitive to light and then uses light to control them. 

“Optogenetics is becoming a common technique,” Griffin said. “It’s a way to study these processes on a millisecond timescale.” 

A 2013 article in the journal Nature Neuroscience said optogenetics “is transforming the field of neuroscience. For the first time, it is now possible to use light to both trigger and silence activity in genetically defined populations of neurons with millisecond precision.”

Griffin, using a rat model, will inject the light-sensitizing substance — a harmless virus — into the nucleus reuniens and then use a laser to inhibit or activate this brain region. The rats then perform tasks that assess their working memory. Synchronization between the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex will also be recorded, with the prediction that the degree of the working memory impairment will be correlated with reductions in synchrony.

“Our experiments will not be interfering with the activities of the hippocampus or the prefrontal cortex within themselves,” Griffin said. “We want to affect only the ability of the structures to talk to each other.”

Stanford scientists reveal complexity in the brain’s wiring diagram

When Joanna Mattis started her doctoral project she expected to map how two regions of the brain connect. Instead, she got a surprise. It turns out the wiring diagram shifts depending on how you flip the switch.

"There’s a lot of excitement about being able to make a map of the brain with the idea that if we could figure out how it is all connected we could understand how it works," Mattis said. "It turns out it’s so much more dynamic than that."

Mattis is a co-first author on a paper describing the work published August 27 in the Journal of Neuroscience. Julia Brill, then a postdoctoral scholar, was the other co-first author.

Mattis had been a graduate student in the lab of Karl Deisseroth, professor of bioengineering and of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, where she helped work on a new technique called optogenetics. That technique allows neuroscientists to selectively turn parts of the brain on and off to see what happens. She wanted to use optogenetics to understand the wiring of a part of the brain involved in spatial memory – it’s what makes a mental map of your surroundings as you explore a new city, for example.

Scientists already knew that when an animal explores habitats, two parts of the brain are involved in the initial exploring phase and then in solidifying a map of the environment – the hippocampus and the septum.

When an animal is exploring an environment, the neurons in the hippocampus fire slow signals to the septum, essentially telling the septum that it’s busy acquiring information. Once the animal is done exploring, those same cells fire off intense signals letting the septum know that it’s now locking that information into memory. The scientists call this phase consolidation. The septum uses that information to then turn around and regulate other signals going into the hippocampus.

"I wanted to study the hippocampus because on the one hand so much was already known – there was already this baseline of knowledge to work off of. But then the question of how the hippocampus and septum communicate hadn’t been accessible before optogenetics," Mattis said.

Neurons in the hippocampus were known to fire in a rhythmic pattern, which is a particular expertise of John Huguenard, a professor of neurology. Mattis obtained an interdisciplinary fellowship through Stanford Bio-X, which allowed her to combine the Deisseroth lab’s expertise in optogenetics with the rhythmic brain network expertise of Julia Brill from the Huguenard lab.

Mattis and Brill used optogenetics to prompt neurons of the hippocampus to mimic either the slow firing characteristic of information acquisition or the rapid firing characteristic of consolidation. When they mimicked the slow firing they saw a quick reaction by cells in the septum. When they mimicked the fast consolidation firing, they saw a much slower response by completely different cells in the septum.

Same set of wires – different outcome. That’s like turning on different lights depending on how hard you flip the switch. “This illustrates how complex the brain is,” Mattis said.

Most scientific papers answer a question: What does this protein do? How does this part of the brain work? By contrast, this paper raised a whole new set of questions, Mattis said. They more or less understand the faster reaction, but what is causing the slower reaction? How widespread is this phenomenon in the brain?

"The other big picture thing that we opened up but didn’t answer is: How can you then tie this back to the circuit overall and learning memory?" Mattis said. "Those would be exciting things to follow up on for future projects."

(Image caption: This image depicts the injection sites and the expression of the viral constructs in the two areas of the brain studied: the Dentate Gyrus of the hippocampus (middle) and the Basolateral Amygdala (bottom corners). Image courtesy of the researchers)

Neuroscientists reverse memories’ emotional associations

Most memories have some kind of emotion associated with them: Recalling the week you just spent at the beach probably makes you feel happy, while reflecting on being bullied provokes more negative feelings.

A new study from MIT neuroscientists reveals the brain circuit that controls how memories become linked with positive or negative emotions. Furthermore, the researchers found that they could reverse the emotional association of specific memories by manipulating brain cells with optogenetics — a technique that uses light to control neuron activity.

The findings, described in the Aug. 27 issue of Nature, demonstrated that a neuronal circuit connecting the hippocampus and the amygdala plays a critical role in associating emotion with memory. This circuit could offer a target for new drugs to help treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, the researchers say.

“In the future, one may be able to develop methods that help people to remember positive memories more strongly than negative ones,” says Susumu Tonegawa, the Picower Professor of Biology and Neuroscience, director of the RIKEN-MIT Center for Neural Circuit Genetics at MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, and senior author of the paper.

The paper’s lead authors are Roger Redondo, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute postdoc at MIT, and Joshua Kim, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Biology.

Shifting memories

Memories are made of many elements, which are stored in different parts of the brain. A memory’s context, including information about the location where the event took place, is stored in cells of the hippocampus, while emotions linked to that memory are found in the amygdala.

Previous research has shown that many aspects of memory, including emotional associations, are malleable. Psychotherapists have taken advantage of this to help patients suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, but the neural circuitry underlying such malleability is not known.

In this study, the researchers set out to explore that malleability with an experimental technique they recently devised that allows them to tag neurons that encode a specific memory, or engram. To achieve this, they label hippocampal cells that are turned on during memory formation with a light-sensitive protein called channelrhodopsin. From that point on, any time those cells are activated with light, the mice recall the memory encoded by that group of cells.

Last year, Tonegawa’s lab used this technique to implant, or “incept,” false memories in mice by reactivating engrams while the mice were undergoing a different experience. In the new study, the researchers wanted to investigate how the context of a memory becomes linked to a particular emotion. First, they used their engram-labeling protocol to tag neurons associated with either a rewarding experience (for male mice, socializing with a female mouse) or an unpleasant experience (a mild electrical shock). In this first set of experiments, the researchers labeled memory cells in a part of the hippocampus called the dentate gyrus.

Two days later, the mice were placed into a large rectangular arena. For three minutes, the researchers recorded which half of the arena the mice naturally preferred. Then, for mice that had received the fear conditioning, the researchers stimulated the labeled cells in the dentate gyrus with light whenever the mice went into the preferred side. The mice soon began avoiding that area, showing that the reactivation of the fear memory had been successful.

The reward memory could also be reactivated: For mice that were reward-conditioned, the researchers stimulated them with light whenever they went into the less-preferred side, and they soon began to spend more time there, recalling the pleasant memory.

A couple of days later, the researchers tried to reverse the mice’s emotional responses. For male mice that had originally received the fear conditioning, they activated the memory cells involved in the fear memory with light for 12 minutes while the mice spent time with female mice. For mice that had initially received the reward conditioning, memory cells were activated while they received mild electric shocks.

Next, the researchers again put the mice in the large two-zone arena. This time, the mice that had originally been conditioned with fear and had avoided the side of the chamber where their hippocampal cells were activated by the laser now began to spend more time in that side when their hippocampal cells were activated, showing that a pleasant association had replaced the fearful one. This reversal also took place in mice that went from reward to fear conditioning.

Altered connections

The researchers then performed the same set of experiments but labeled memory cells in the basolateral amygdala, a region involved in processing emotions. This time, they could not induce a switch by reactivating those cells — the mice continued to behave as they had been conditioned when the memory cells were first labeled.

This suggests that emotional associations, also called valences, are encoded somewhere in the neural circuitry that connects the dentate gyrus to the amygdala, the researchers say. A fearful experience strengthens the connections between the hippocampal engram and fear-encoding cells in the amygdala, but that connection can be weakened later on as new connections are formed between the hippocampus and amygdala cells that encode positive associations.

“That plasticity of the connection between the hippocampus and the amygdala plays a crucial role in the switching of the valence of the memory,” Tonegawa says.

These results indicate that while dentate gyrus cells are neutral with respect to emotion, individual amygdala cells are precommitted to encode fear or reward memory. The researchers are now trying to discover molecular signatures of these two types of amygdala cells. They are also investigating whether reactivating pleasant memories has any effect on depression, in hopes of identifying new targets for drugs to treat depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

David Anderson, a professor of biology at the California Institute of Technology, says the study makes an important contribution to neuroscientists’ fundamental understanding of the brain and also has potential implications for treating mental illness.

“This is a tour de force of modern molecular-biology-based methods for analyzing processes, such as learning and memory, at the neural-circuitry level. It’s one of the most sophisticated studies of this type that I’ve seen,” he says.

Stop and Listen: Study Shows How Movement Affects Hearing

When we want to listen carefully to someone, the first thing we do is stop talking. The second thing we do is stop moving altogether. This strategy helps us hear better by preventing unwanted sounds generated by our own movements.

This interplay between movement and hearing also has a counterpart deep in the brain. Indeed, indirect evidence has long suggested that the brain’s motor cortex, which controls movement, somehow influences the auditory cortex, which gives rise to our conscious perception of sound.

A new Duke study, appearing online August 27 in Nature, combines cutting-edge methods in electrophysiology, optogenetics and behavioral analysis to reveal exactly how the motor cortex, seemingly in anticipation of movement, can tweak the volume control in the auditory cortex.

The new lab methods allowed the group to “get beyond a century’s worth of very powerful but largely correlative observations, and develop a new, and really a harder, causality-driven view of how the brain works,” said the study’s senior author Richard Mooney Ph.D., a professor of neurobiology at Duke University School of Medicine, and a member of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences.

The findings contribute to the basic knowledge of how communication between the brain’s motor and auditory cortexes might affect hearing during speech or musical performance. Disruptions to the same circuitry may give rise to auditory hallucinations in people with schizophrenia.

In 2013, researchers led by Mooney first characterized the connections between motor and auditory areas in mouse brain slices as well as in anesthetized mice. The new study answers the critical question of how those connections operate in an awake, moving mouse.

"This is a major step forward in that we’ve now interrogated the system in an animal that’s freely behaving," said David Schneider, a postdoctoral associate in Mooney’s lab.

Mooney suspects that the motor cortex learns how to mute responses in the auditory cortex to sounds that are expected to arise from one’s own movements while heightening sensitivity to other, unexpected sounds. The group is testing this idea.

"Our first step will be to start making more realistic situations where the animal needs to ignore the sounds that its movements are making in order to detect things that are happening in the world," Schneider said.

In the latest study, the team recorded electrical activity of individual neurons in the brain’s auditory cortex. Whenever the mice moved — walking, grooming, or making high-pitched squeaks — neurons in their auditory cortex were dampened in response to tones played to the animals, compared to when they were at rest.

To find out whether movement was directly influencing the auditory cortex, researchers conducted a series of experiments in awake animals using optogenetics, a powerful method that uses light to control the activity of select populations of neurons that have been genetically sensitized to light. Like the game of telephone, sounds that enter the ear pass through six or more relays in the brain before reaching the auditory cortex.

"Optogenetics can be used to activate a specific relay in the network, in this case the penultimate node that relays signals to the auditory cortex," Mooney said.

About half of the suppression during movement was found to originate within the auditory cortex itself. “That says a lot of modulation is going on in the auditory cortex, and not just at earlier relays in the auditory system” Mooney said.

More specifically, the team found that movement stimulates inhibitory neurons that in turn suppress the response of the auditory cortex to tones.

The researchers then wondered what turns on the inhibitory neurons. The suspects were many. “The auditory cortex is like this giant switching station where all these different inputs come through and say, ‘Okay, I want to have access to these interneurons,’” Mooney said. “The question we wanted to answer is who gets access to them during movement?”

The team knew from previous experiments that neuronal projections from the secondary motor cortex (M2) modulate the auditory cortex. But to isolate M2’s relative contribution — something not possible with traditional electrophysiology — the researchers again used optogenetics, this time to switch on and off the M2’s inputs to the inhibitory neurons.

Turning on M2 inputs reproduced a sense of movement in the auditory cortex, even in mice that were resting, the group found. “We were sending a ‘Hey I’m moving’ signal to the auditory cortex,” Schneider said. Then the effect of playing a tone on the auditory cortex was much the same as if the animal had actually been moving — a result that confirmed the importance of M2 in modulating the auditory cortex. On the other hand, turning off M2 simulated rest in the auditory cortex, even when the animals were still moving.

"I couldn’t contain my excitement when we first saw that result," said Anders Nelson, a neurobiology graduate student in Mooney’s group.

Driving brain rhythm makes mice more sensitive to touch

By striking up the right rhythm in the right brain region at the right time, Brown University neuroscientists report in Nature Neuroscience that they managed to endow mice with greater touch sensitivity than other mice, making hard-to-perceive vibrations suddenly more vivid to them.

The findings offer the first direct evidence that “gamma” brainwaves in the cortex affect perception and attention. With only correlations and associations as evidence before, neuroscientists have argued for years about whether gamma has an important role or whether it’s merely a byproduct — an “exhaust fume” in the words of one — of such brain activity.

“There’s a lot of excitement about the importance of gamma rhythms in behavior, as well as a lot of skepticism,” said co-lead author Joshua Siegle, a former graduate student at Brown University and MIT, who is now at the Allen Institute for Neuroscience. “Rather than try to correlate changes in gamma rhythms with changes in behavior, which is what researchers have done in the past, we chose to directly control the cells that produce gamma.”

The result was a mouse with whiskers that were about 20 percent more sensitive.

“There were a lot of ways this experiment could have failed but instead to our surprise it was pretty decisive from the very first subject we looked at — that under certain conditions we can make a super-perceiving mouse,” said Christopher Moore, associate professor of neuroscience at Brown and senior author of the study. “We’re making a mouse do better than a mouse could have done otherwise.”

Specifically, Moore and co-first authors Siegle and Dominique Pritchett performed their experiments by using optogenetics — a technique of using light to control the firing patterns of neurons — to generate a gamma rhythm by manipulating inhibitory interneurons in the primary sensory neocortex of mice. That part of the brain controls a mouse’s ability to detect faint sensations via its whiskers.

A different part of the brain handles stronger, more imposing sensations, Moore said. The primary sensory neocortex, a particular feature of mammals, has the distinction of allowing an animal to purposely pay attention to more subtle sensations. It’s the difference between the feeling of gently brushing a fingertip along a wood board to assess if it needs a bit more sanding and the feeling of dropping the wood board on a foot.

Before anything else in the paper, the researchers confirmed that mice naturally produce a 40-hertz gamma rhythm in their sensory neocortex sometimes. Then they optogenetically generated that gamma rhythm with precise pulses of blue light. Mice with this rhythm could more often detect the fainter vibrations the researchers supplied to their whiskers than could mice who did not have the rhythm going in their brains.

Control and optogenetically stimulated mice alike had been conditioned to indicated their detection of a supplied stimulus by licking a water bottle. The vibrations provided to the mice to sense covered a span of 17 different levels of detectability.

The team’s hypothesis was that the gamma rhythm of the stimulated neurons, because they inhibit the transmission of sensation messages by pyramidal neurons in the neocortex with a structured periodicity, actually orders the pyramidal messages into a more coherent and therefore stronger train.

“It’s not surprising that these synchronized bursts of activity can benefit signal transmission, in the same way that synchronized clapping in a crowd of people is louder than random clapping,” Siegle said.

This idea suggested that the timing of the rhythm matters.

So in another experiment, Siegle, Pritchett, and Moore varied the onset of the gamma rhythm by increments of 5 milliseconds to see whether it made a difference to perception. It did. The mice showed their increased sensitivity only so long as the gamma rhythms were underway 20-25 milliseconds before the subtle sensations were presented. If they weren’t, the mice experienced on average no impact on sensitivity.

One of the key implications from the findings for neuroscience, Moore said, is that the way gamma rhythms appear to structure the processing of perception is more important than the mere firing rate of neurons in the sensory neocortex. Mice became better able to feel not because neurons became more active (they didn’t), but because they were entrained by a precisely timed rhythm.

Although the study provides causal evidence of a functional importance for gamma rhythms, Moore acknowledged, it still leaves open important questions. The exact mechanism by which gamma rhythms affect sensation processing and attention are not proved, only hypothesized.

And in one experiment, optogenetically stimulated mice appeared less able to detect the most obvious and imposing of the sensations, even as they became more sensitive to the more subtle ones. In other experiments, however, their detection of major sensations was not compromised.

But the possible loss of sensitivity to stimuli that are easier to feel could be consistent with a shifting of attention to fainter ones, said Pritchett, also a former Brown and MIT student now at the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown in Lisbon, Portugal.

“What we are showing is that, paradoxically, the rhythmic inhibitory input works to amplify threshold stimuli, possibly at the expense of salient stimuli,” he said. “This is precisely what you would expect from a mechanism that might be responsible for selective attention in the brain.”

Therefore, Siegle, Pritchett, and Moore say they do have a better feel now for what’s going on in the brain.

Scientists Discover Area of Brain Responsible for Exercise Motivation

Scientists at Seattle Children’s Research Institute have discovered an area of the brain that could control a person’s motivation to exercise and participate in other rewarding activities – potentially leading to improved treatments for depression.

Dr. Eric Turner, a principal investigator in Seattle Children’s Research Institute’s Center for Integrative Brain Research, together with lead author Dr. Yun-Wei (Toni) Hsu, have discovered that a tiny region of the brain – the dorsal medial habenula – controls the desire to exercise in mice. The structure of the habenula is similar in humans and rodents and these basic functions in mood regulation and motivation are likely to be the same across species.  

Exercise is one of the most effective non-pharmacological therapies for depression. Determining that such a specific area of the brain may be responsible for motivation to exercise could help researchers develop more targeted, effective treatments for depression. 

“Changes in physical activity and the inability to enjoy rewarding or pleasurable experiences are two hallmarks of major depression,” Turner said. “But the brain pathways responsible for exercise motivation have not been well understood. Now, we can seek ways to manipulate activity within this specific area of the brain without impacting the rest of the brain’s activity.” 

Dr. Turner’s study, titled “Role of the Dorsal Medial Habenula in the Regulation of Voluntary Activity, Motor Function, Hedonic State, and Primary Reinforcement,” was published today by the Journal of Neuroscience and funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study used mouse models that were genetically engineered to block signals from the dorsal medial habenula. In the first part of the study, Dr. Turner’s team collaborated with Dr. Horacio de la Iglesia, a professor in University of Washington’s Department of Biology, to show that compared to typical mice, who love to run in their exercise wheels, the genetically engineered mice were lethargic and ran far less. Turner’s genetically engineered mice also lost their preference for sweetened drinking water. 

“Without a functioning dorsal medial habenula, the mice became couch potatoes,” Turner said. “They were physically capable of running but appeared unmotivated to do it.” 

In a second group of mice, Dr. Turner’s team activated the dorsal medial habenula using optogenetics – a precise laser technology developed in collaboration with the Allen Institute for Brain Science. The mice could “choose” to activate this area of the brain by turning one of two response wheels with their paws. The mice strongly preferred turning the wheel that stimulated the dorsal medial habenula, demonstrating that this area of the brain is tied to rewarding behavior.  

Past studies have attributed many different functions to the habenula, but technology was not advanced enough to determine roles of the various subsections of this area of the brain, including the dorsal medial habenula. 

“Traditional methods of stimulation could not isolate this part of the brain,” Turner said. “But cutting-edge technology at Seattle Children’s Research Institute makes discoveries like this possible.” 

As a professor in the University of Washington Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Dr. Turner treats depression and hopes this research will make a difference in the lives of future patients. 

“Working in mental health can be frustrating,” Turner said. “We have not made a lot of progress in developing new treatments. I hope the more we can learn about how the brain functions the more we can help people with all kinds of mental illness.”