Summary Neurons in prefrontal cortex (PFC) encode rules, goals and other abstract information thought to underlie cognitive, emotional, and behavioral flexibility. Here we show that the amygdala, a brain area traditionally thought to mediate emotions, also encodes abstract information that could underlie this flexibility. Monkeys performed a task in which stimulus-reinforcement contingencies varied between two sets of associations, each defining a context. Reinforcement prediction required identifying a stimulus and knowing the current context. Behavioral evidence indicated that monkeys utilized this information to perform inference and adjust their behavior. Neural representations in both amygdala and PFC reflected the linked sets of associations implicitly defining each context, a process requiring a level of abstraction characteristic of cognitive operations. Surprisingly, when errors were made, the context signal weakened substantially in the amygdala. These data emphasize the importance of maintaining abstract cognitive information in the amygdala to support flexible behavior.

Our decisions often depend on multiple sensory experiences separated by time delays. The brain can remember these experiences and, simultaneously, estimate the timing between events. To understand the mechanisms underlying working memory and time encoding we analyze neural activity recorded during delays in four experiments on non-human primates. To disambiguate potential mechanisms, we propose two analyses, namely, decoding the passage of time from neural data, and computing the cumulative dimensionality of the neural trajectory over time. Time can be decoded with high precision in tasks where timing information is relevant and with lower precision when irrelevant for performing the task. Neural trajectories are always observed to be low dimensional. These constraints rule out working memory models that rely on constant, sustained activity, and neural networks with high dimensional trajectories, like reservoir networks. Instead, recurrent networks trained with backpropagation capture the time encoding properties and the dimensionality observed in the data.

Our decisions often depend on multiple sensory experiences separated by time delays. The brain can remember these experiences and, simultaneously, estimate the timing between events. To understand the mechanisms underlying working memory and time encoding, we analyze neural activity recorded during delays in four experiments on nonhuman primates. To disambiguate potential mechanisms, we propose two analyses, namely, decoding the passage of time from neural data and computing the cumulative dimensionality of the neural trajectory over time. Time can be decoded with high precision in tasks where timing information is relevant and with lower precision when irrelevant for performing the task. Neural trajectories are always observed to be low-dimensional. In addition, our results further constrain the mechanisms underlying time encoding as we find that the linear “ramping” component of each neuron’s firing rate strongly contributes to the slow timescale variations that make decoding time possible. These constraints rule out working memory models that rely on constant, sustained activity and neural networks with high-dimensional trajectories, like reservoir networks. Instead, recurrent networks trained with backpropagation capture the time-encoding properties and the dimensionality observed in the data.

Decision-making often involves using sensory cues to predict possible rewarding or punishing reinforcement outcomes before selecting a course of action. Recent work has revealed complexity in how the brain learns to predict rewards and punishments. Analysis of neural signaling during and after learning in the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex, two brain areas that process appetitive and aversive stimuli, reveals a dynamic relationship between appetitive and aversive circuits. Specifically, the relationship between signaling in appetitive and aversive circuits in these areas shifts as a function of learning. Furthermore, although appetitive and aversive circuits may often drive opposite behaviors – approaching or avoiding reinforcement depending upon its valence – these circuits can also drive similar behaviors, such as enhanced arousal or attention; these processes also may influence choice behavior. These data highlight the formidable challenges ahead in dissecting how appetitive and aversive neural circuits interact to produce a complex and nuanced range of behaviors.

No abstract