Synchronous activity in populations of neurons potentially encodes special stimulus features. Selective readout of either synchronous or asynchronous activity allows formation of two streams of information processing. Theoretical work predicts that such a synchrony code is a fundamental feature of populations of spiking neurons if they operate in specific noise and stimulus regimes. Here we experimentally test the theoretical predictions by quantifying and comparing neuronal response properties in tuberous and ampullary electroreceptor afferents of the weakly electric fish Apteronotus leptorhynchus. These related systems show similar levels of synchronous activity, but only in the more irregularly firing tuberous afferents a synchrony code is established, whereas in the more regularly firing ampullary afferents it is not. The mere existence of synchronous activity is thus not sufficient for a synchrony code. Single-cell features such as the irregularity of spiking and the frequency dependence of the neuron's transfer function determine whether synchronous spikes possess a distinct meaning for the encoding of time-dependent signals. Because of the strong nonlinearity of the spiking threshold, neural noise can be beneficial by improving the representation of stimuli in populations of spiking neurons (3-7). Noise reduces the precision with which spikes lock to the stimulus (1). In populations of neurons that share a common input, for example by having overlapping receptive fields, noise as well as population heterogeneity has the advantage to decorrelate the responses (8, 9). That is, only those stimulus features that drive the population strongest could synchronize the response across neurons and thereby signal the presence of a particularly important stimulus.The role of synchronous activity in the cortex is widely discussed (6, 10-12), e.g., as a possible solution for the binding problem (for review see, e.g., refs. 13 and 14), as a separate information channel to relay visual information from thalamus to visual cortex (15), as a mechanism for gain control in visual cortex (16), or as a code for odor categories in zebrafish olfactory bulb (17).A synchrony code requires that asynchronously firing populations are synchronized or, vice versa, synchronization is escaped under certain conditions or by specific stimuli. In weakly electric fish, changes in the level of synchronization are considered an important cue for the detection of communication signals on the level of the receptor afferents (18-21) and subsequent processing in hind-and midbrain neurons (22,23). Middleton et al. (24) demonstrated that reading out population activity of electrosensory neurons with either integrators or coincidence detectors results in two distinct representations of sensory stimuli. Integrators encode low stimulus frequencies, approximately matching frequencies characteristic of prey detection and navigation. Coincidence detectors discard low-frequency information and encode predominantly higher frequencies matching the ones of c...

We compare the information transmission of a time-dependent signal by two types of uncoupled neuron populations that differ in their sources of variability: i) a homogeneous population whose units receive independent noise and ii) a deterministic heterogeneous population, where each unit exhibits a different baseline firing rate ('disorder'). Our criterion for making both sources of variability quantitatively comparable is that the interspike-interval distributions are identical for both systems. Numerical simulations using leaky integrate-and-fire neurons unveil that a non-zero amount of both noise or disorder maximizes the encoding efficiency of the homogeneous and heterogeneous system, respectively, as a particular case of suprathreshold stochastic resonance. Our findings thus illustrate that heterogeneity can render similarly profitable effects for neuronal populations as dynamic noise. The optimal noise/disorder depends on the system size and the properties of the stimulus such as its intensity or cutoff frequency. We find that weak stimuli are better encoded by a noiseless heterogeneous population, whereas for strong stimuli a homogeneous population outperforms an equivalent heterogeneous system up to a moderate noise level. Furthermore, we derive analytical expressions of the coherence function for the cases of very strong noise and of vanishing intrinsic noise or heterogeneity, which predict the existence of an optimal noise intensity. Our results show that, depending on the type of signal, noise as well as heterogeneity can enhance the encoding performance of neuronal populations.

Table of contentsA1 Functional advantages of cell-type heterogeneity in neural circuitsTatyana O. SharpeeA2 Mesoscopic modeling of propagating waves in visual cortexAlain DestexheA3 Dynamics and biomarkers of mental disordersMitsuo KawatoF1 Precise recruitment of spiking output at theta frequencies requires dendritic h-channels in multi-compartment models of oriens-lacunosum/moleculare hippocampal interneuronsVladislav Sekulić, Frances K. SkinnerF2 Kernel methods in reconstruction of current sources from extracellular potentials for single cells and the whole brainsDaniel K. Wójcik, Chaitanya Chintaluri, Dorottya Cserpán, Zoltán SomogyváriF3 The synchronized periods depend on intracellular transcriptional repression mechanisms in circadian clocks.Jae Kyoung Kim, Zachary P. Kilpatrick, Matthew R. Bennett, Kresimir JosićO1 Assessing irregularity and coordination of spiking-bursting rhythms in central pattern generatorsIrene Elices, David Arroyo, Rafael Levi, Francisco B. Rodriguez, Pablo VaronaO2 Regulation of top-down processing by cortically-projecting parvalbumin positive neurons in basal forebrainEunjin Hwang, Bowon Kim, Hio-Been Han, Tae Kim, James T. McKenna, Ritchie E. Brown, Robert W. McCarley, Jee Hyun ChoiO3 Modeling auditory stream segregation, build-up and bistabilityJames Rankin, Pamela Osborn Popp, John RinzelO4 Strong competition between tonotopic neural ensembles explains pitch-related dynamics of auditory cortex evoked fieldsAlejandro Tabas, André Rupp, Emili Balaguer-BallesterO5 A simple model of retinal response to multi-electrode stimulationMatias I. Maturana, David B. Grayden, Shaun L. Cloherty, Tatiana Kameneva, Michael R. Ibbotson, Hamish MeffinO6 Noise correlations in V4 area correlate with behavioral performance in visual discrimination taskVeronika Koren, Timm Lochmann, Valentin Dragoi, Klaus ObermayerO7 Input-location dependent gain modulation in cerebellar nucleus neuronsMaria Psarrou, Maria Schilstra, Neil Davey, Benjamin Torben-Nielsen, Volker SteuberO8 Analytic solution of cable energy function for cortical axons and dendritesHuiwen Ju, Jiao Yu, Michael L. Hines, Liang Chen, Yuguo YuO9 C. elegans interactome: interactive visualization of Caenorhabditis elegans worm neuronal networkJimin Kim, Will Leahy, Eli ShlizermanO10 Is the model any good? Objective criteria for computational neuroscience model selectionJustas Birgiolas, Richard C. Gerkin, Sharon M. CrookO11 Cooperation and competition of gamma oscillation mechanismsAtthaphon Viriyopase, Raoul-Martin Memmesheimer, Stan GielenO12 A discrete structure of the brain wavesYuri Dabaghian, Justin DeVito, Luca PerottiO13 Direction-specific silencing of the Drosophila gaze stabilization systemAnmo J. Kim, Lisa M. Fenk, Cheng Lyu, Gaby MaimonO14 What does the fruit fly think about values? A model of olfactory associative learningChang Zhao, Yves Widmer, Simon Sprecher,Walter SennO15 Effects of ionic diffusion on power spectra of local field potentials (LFP)Geir Halnes, Tuomo Mäki-Marttunen, Daniel Keller, Klas H. Pettersen,Ole A. Andreassen...