Several areas of the brain are known to participate in temporal processing. Neurons in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) are thought to contribute to perception of time intervals. However, it remains unclear whether the PFC itself can generate time intervals independently of external stimuli. Here we describe a group of PFC neurons in area 9 that became active when monkeys recognized a particular elapsed time within the range of 1-7 seconds. Another group of area 9 neurons became active only when subjects reproduced a specific interval without external cues. Both types of neurons were individually tuned to recognize or reproduce particular intervals. Moreover, the injection of muscimol, a GABA agonist, into this area bilaterally resulted in an increase in the error rate during time interval reproduction. These results suggest that area 9 may process multi-second intervals not only in perceptual recognition, but also in internal generation of time intervals.
Several areas of the brain are known to participate in temporal processing. Neurons in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) are thought to contribute to perception of time intervals. However, it remains unclear whether the PFC itself can generate time intervals independently of external stimuli. Here we describe a group of PFC neurons in area 9 that became active when monkeys recognized a particular elapsed time within the range of 1-7 seconds. Another group of area 9 neurons became active only when subjects reproduced a specific interval without external cues. Both types of neurons were individually tuned to recognize or reproduce particular intervals. Moreover, the injection of muscimol, a GABA agonist, into this area bilaterally resulted in an increase in the error rate during time interval reproduction. These results suggest that area 9 may process multi-second intervals not only in perceptual recognition, but also in internal generation of time intervals.
Time is a fundamental element in living systems [1]. When we speak, or play sports
and music, we sense the elapsed time intervals to monitor the events, and even
generate preferred durations for the completion of the performance of the task.
Other species also rely on perception of time to coordinate their behavior [1]–[3]. Brain
mechanisms for tracking temporal features of external stimuli are known to utilize
neuronal assemblies of the cerebellum [4], [5], olivo-cerebellar system [6], [7], basal ganglia [8],
cortico-striatal circuits [9]–[13] and cerebral cortex [14]–[19]. Subcortical areas,
particularly within the olivo-cerebellar system, can process measures of time for
motor control on the order of milliseconds [6]. Cortical areas, particularly
frontal or prefrontal cortex (PFC), may be involved in cognitive tasks such as time
estimation [20],
time discrimination [21], frequency timing [22], and timing of delay [23]. Recognition of
multi-second intervals of external stimuli may require processing in PFC [24]. However, it
remains unclear whether the PFC is involved in generation of multi-second time
intervals, without reference to environmental stimuli. To address this question, we
devised a time-reproduction task similar to tasks studied in human subjects [25], which required
two macaque monkeys to estimate specific multi-second time intervals during stimuli
(durations of 2, 4, and 7 s for monkey J, and 1 and 5 s for monkey M), and then
later to reproduce these intervals by pressing a button based on an internally
generated estimate of the elapsed time (Fig. 1 A). The principal features of our task were as follows: (1) The
target duration was presented for a specific multi-second interval (from among a set
of intervals for which the monkey had been trained); (2) The monkey needed to
perceive the time elapsed during this presentation period, in order to reproduce the
interval later; (3) After a variable interim period, the monkey had to actually
reproduce the time interval that matched the interval previously presented, in order
to receive the reward. Thus, this task enabled us to investigate the neuronal
activity associated with both perception and reproduction of time by means of
extracellular single unit recording in area 9 of the PFC during performance of the
task. In addition to the extracellular single unit recording in area 9, we performed
muscimol blockage in area 9 to investigate whether reversible ablation of this site
would induce behavioral changes on comparing pre-versus post-injection data.
Figure 1
Task schema and recording sites.
(A) Behavioral task schema. The monkeys were trained to prepare for and then
observe the presentation of a time interval of visual stimuli, and after a
variable interim period, then to reproduce this presented interval with a
button press, as described in materials and methods. (B) Sites of single unit recordings and muscimol
injections. Each dot indicates an electrode track where cellular activity
was recorded in relation to the behavioral task. The size of the dot is
proportional to the number of task-related cells in area 9. Red crosses
denote sites of muscimol injection, which was performed to analyze effects
on performance of the behavioral task. iAS, inferior limb of the arcuate
sulcus; PS, principal sulcus; sAS, superior limb of the arcuate sulcus.
Task schema and recording sites.
(A) Behavioral task schema. The monkeys were trained to prepare for and then
observe the presentation of a time interval of visual stimuli, and after a
variable interim period, then to reproduce this presented interval with a
button press, as described in materials and methods. (B) Sites of single unit recordings and muscimol
injections. Each dot indicates an electrode track where cellular activity
was recorded in relation to the behavioral task. The size of the dot is
proportional to the number of task-related cells in area 9. Red crosses
denote sites of muscimol injection, which was performed to analyze effects
on performance of the behavioral task. iAS, inferior limb of the arcuate
sulcus; PS, principal sulcus; sAS, superior limb of the arcuate sulcus.
Methods
Animals
We used two macaque monkeys (Macaca fuscata): monkey J (6.1 kg) and monkey M (5.6
kg). This study was carried out in strict accordance with the Guideline for the
Care and Use of Animals (Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Neuroscience 2000).
All surgical and experimental protocols were approved by the Animal Care and Use
Committee of the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Neuroscience (Permit
Number:08–1815). All efforts were made to minimize suffering in accordance
with the recommendations of the “The use of non-human primates in
research”. For example, the monkeys were kept in individual primate cages
in an air-conditioned room where food was always available. Their health
condition, including factors such as body weight and appetite, was checked
daily. Supplementary water and fruit were provided daily. All surgery was
performed under general anesthesia (intravenous injection of pentobarbital
sodium).
Behavioral procedures
The time-reproduction task required the monkey to estimate specific multi-second
durations during signal presentations, and then to reproduce these durations by
planning the interval response (button press) based on estimates of the elapsed
times. During each stimulus-response trial, the time task began with moving a
hand to a light sensor, a black dot beside button, and continuously leaving the
hand on the sensor for 1.5 s (Fig.
1A). A control LED on a vertical plate fixed directly in front of the
monkey was turned on. After 1–3 s, another LED (instruction LED) was
turned on and lasted 2, 4, or 7 s for monkey J and 1 or 5 s for monkey M, to
signal the time intervals that they had to reproduce later. Following an
additional interim period (randomly assigned as 1–8 s), the control LED
dimmed (Go signal). On observing a dimming of the LED (the “Go
signal”, to signal the start of the interval response period), the monkey
had to reproduce the time interval that matched the interval previously
presented; then the monkey pressed a button to signal the end of the interval
response period (reproduced intervals) (Fig. 1 A). Successful trials were defined as
intervals reproduced within±15% of the interval previously
presented, which was defined as the “correct response range (CRR)”.
The successful trials were always followed by supply of liquid reward.
Surgical and electrophysiological recording procedures
The monkeys were trained to perform the task consistently with greater than
80% accuracy (i.e., with 80% of responses of generated intervals
that fell within the CRR). At the final stage of the training period, a head
holder and a chamber for unit recordings were implanted. The surgical and
electrophysiological recording procedures were described in detail elsewhere
[26], [27]. We performed
single unit recordings using a glass-coated Elgiloy-alloy microelectrode
(0.5–1.5 MOhm at 1 kHz). During the recording, the time was chosen from a
set either of 2, 4, and 7 s, or of 1 and 5 s. In order to prevent habituation to
the performance of specific times, times were presented pseudo-randomly for each
repetition, at least five repetitions for each cell. Eye and hand movements were
monitored by a video camera while the monkey's head was fixed to the
primate chair.We identified the sites of single unit recordings primarily as area 9 according
to the following procedures: (1) pre-operative MRI images (Hitachi, AIRIS, 0.3
T) to determine the best position of a recording chamber [26]; (2) anatomical location
(dorso-medial) PFC, 1–6 mm from midline, anterior to the near end of the
superior arcuate sulcus; (3) cortical surface reconstruction of electrode
penetrations in the post-mortem brains (see Fig. 1B).
Muscimol injections
We used a stainless-steel tube (inner diameter 0.06 mm, outer diameter 0.14 mm,
length 180 mm) with a sharp angle at the tip, to which a tungsten microelectrode
(impedance 0.5–2.0 MOhm at 1 kHz) was attached side by side with an
instant glue, where the tip of the electrode protruded from the tip of the
injection tube by 0.2–0.3 mm. The injection tube was connected to a
10-µl Hamilton microsyringe by a polyethylene tube (diameter, 0.3 mm). We
carried out a total of three muscimol injection experiments in monkey J, each on
a separate day in order to make reversible inactivation of the PFC. During an
injection experiment, we first recorded neuronal activities using the
microelectrode attached to the injection tube. Injections were made at the depth
that the task-related neurons were observed. The injections were always done
into both hemispheres of the brain, two sites on each hemisphere (Fig. 1B). An aqueous solution
of muscimol (Sigma; 5 µg/µl) was pressure-injected in 5–7
steps (0.2 µl for each step) with an interval of 20 s between steps. A
total amount of 1.0–1.4 µl was deposited for each injection site. We
collected behavioral data for 3 hours after the injections.We chose not to perform saline control injections at this site, given evidence
that there was no effect after a similar amount of saline was injected into
multiple areas of the primate brain, such as cortex [28], or cerebellar dentate nuclei
through the same procedure [26], we did not perform saline injections for the current
study.
Data analysis
To define “duration-recognizing” (DR) neurons and
“interval-generating” (IG) neurons, we first examined whether
discharge rates during the interim period and the interval-response period
significantly varied among different presented intervals (2 s, 4 s, and 7 s for
monkey J; 1 s and 5 s for monkey M; ANOVA, P<0.05). Second, if the discharge
rate for a certain interval (e.g. 2 s) was significantly higher than those for
the others (4 s or 7 s) (Fisher's SLD test, P<0.05) during the interim
period, the neuron was defined as the DR neuron, specific for the interval
(e.g., DR neuron, 2-s specific neuron). If the discharge rate for a certain
interval (e.g. 2 s) was significantly higher than those for the others (4 s or 7
s) (Fisher's SLD test, P<0.05) during the interval-response period, the
neuron was defined as the IG neuron, specific for the interval (e.g., IG neuron,
2-s specific neuron).We compared the error rate of the post-injection performance with that of the
pre-injection performance to assess the effect of muscimol blockade of
prefrontal cell activity on the monkey's performance. The error rate was
calculated as the ratio of failed trials to the total of failed and successful
trials during the performance of a block of 10 successful repetitions.
Pre-injection data and post-injection data were collected in 3 paired days
separated by one week between pairs, with a pre-injection session on one day and
a muscimol injection session on the following day. Statistical comparison
(t-test, P<0.05) was made for the error rates between the pre- and
post-muscimol injections in the three injection experiments. A total of 1080 and
1134 trials of task performance, approximately 360 and 378 trials per time
interval, were included in the post- and pre-injection groups, respectively. A
button press frequency (a response rate) was calculated as the ratio of the
number of responses during 50 ms time bin to the total of 360 or 378 trials.
Results
Activity during duration recognition
We found two groups of time related neurons, with single unit recordings carried
out in area 9 of the PFC during performance of the time task. One group showed a
higher activity lasting 1–2 s immediately after the duration-presentation
period, with specificity of individual neurons to particular intervals
(Fisher's SLD test, P<0.05). We termed such neurons
“duration-recognizing” (DR) neurons. Another group showed increased
activity during the interval response period (time-reproduction period), with
specificity of individual neurons to particular intervals (Fisher's SLD
test, P<0.05). We termed these neurons “interval-generating” (IG)
neurons. Among 497 cells (154 cells in monkey J; 343 cells in monkey M) recorded
from the PFC, the DR cells constituted 39% (n = 60)
in monkey J and 29% (n = 98) in monkey M, and the IG
cells constituted 44% (n = 68) in monkey J and
32% (n = 111) in monkey M. Only a small group of
neurons, 9% (n = 14) in monkey J and 3%
(n = 10) in monkey M were active during both the interim
and interval response periods. This indicates that DR and IG functions were
rarely combined in a single cell.Typical activities of DR neurons in monkey J are shown in Fig. 2A–C, with examples of one neuron
tuned to each of the time intervals (2, 4 and 7 s). Typical activities of DR
neurons in monkey M, in cells specific for 1 and 5 s, are depicted in Fig. S1.
This is most evident if one compares neuronal discharges during the initial 1-s
portion of the interim period across the different time intervals. The cell in
Fig. 2A showed higher
activity after 2-s interval presentation than after 4-s and 7-s interval
presentations (Fisher's SLD test, P<0.05). Similarly, the cells in Fig. 2B and 2C were tuned to 4-s and 7-s
intervals, respectively (Fisher's SLD test, P<0.05). We propose that
such time-specific activity may contribute to recognition of particular
multi-second time lengths in environmental stimuli.
Figure 2
Duration-recognizing- and interval-generating-related
activity.
Activity of individual DR neurons specific for 2 s (A), 4 s (B), or 7 s
(C) in monkey J. Shown in histogram and raster format is spike discharge
during the duration presentation period and the early interim period of
each time task. Note the time-specific activity that is seen during the
1-s period after cue offset. Activity of individual IG neurons specific
for 2 s (D), 4 s (E), or 7 s (F) in monkey J. Shown is the spike
discharge rate during the interval response period of each time
task.
Duration-recognizing- and interval-generating-related
activity.
Activity of individual DR neurons specific for 2 s (A), 4 s (B), or 7 s
(C) in monkey J. Shown in histogram and raster format is spike discharge
during the duration presentation period and the early interim period of
each time task. Note the time-specific activity that is seen during the
1-s period after cue offset. Activity of individual IG neurons specific
for 2 s (D), 4 s (E), or 7 s (F) in monkey J. Shown is the spike
discharge rate during the interval response period of each time
task.
Activity during time interval generation
The IG neurons shown in Fig.
2D–F demonstrated activities specific for 2, 4, and 7 s by
increased firing during the interval-response period (Fisher's SLD test,
P<0.05). Typical activities of IG neurons in monkey M, in cells specific for
1 and 5 s, are depicted in Fig. S2. For example, the cell (J164) in
Fig. 2E showed more
activity during the reproduction of the 4-s time length than it did during the
2-s and 7-s reproductions (Fisher's SLD test, P<0.05). Likewise, the
cells J126 and J251 in Fig.
2D and 2F were
more active during the reproduction of either the 2-s or the 7-s time period,
respectively, than they were during other interval reproductions. We propose
that this type of time-specific activity is involved in generating an internal
representation of time length that is at least partly independent of external
stimuli.Each monkey had approximately equal proportions of DR neurons and IG neurons
tuned to each of the highly practiced time intervals. Among 60 DR cells in
monkey J, 38% (n = 23), 27%
(n = 16), and 35% (n = 21) of
the total exhibited activities specific for presented durations of 2, 4, and 7
s, respectively. Among 68 IG cells in this monkey, 40%
(n = 27), 28% (n = 19), and
32% (n = 22) of the total showed 2-s, 4-s, and 7-s
specific activities, respectively. Among 98 DR cells in monkey M, 58%
(n = 57) and 42% (n = 41) of
the total were tuned to 1-s and 5-s durations, respectively. Among 111 IG cells
in this monkey J, 50% (n = 56) and 50%
(n = 55) of the total were tuned to 1-s and 5-s durations,
respectively.On the other hand, only a small group of neurons were more active during the
duration-presentation period. In monkey J, 3%
(n = 5) and in monkey M 6%
(n = 20) of the total of recorded cells had enhanced
activity early during presentation of the time intervals (ANOVA, p<0.05). We
failed to detect significant relationships between the firing patterns of these
neurons and the specific time intervals.To further test the importance of area 9 neurons in the reproduction of time
intervals, we reversibly inactivated the PFC in monkey J, by local injection of
muscimol, a GABA agonist [26], [28]. The effect of muscimol on the accuracy of interval
responses was demonstrated by a significant increase in the error rate for all
three injections (Fig. 3A,
t-test, P<0.05). Fig.
3B–D showed the further details of the behavioral changes with
the comparison of the frequency of interval responses based on the estimates of
the elapsed times between pre- and post-injection. The response times in the
absence of muscimol injection were distributed with single peaks that fell
nearly at the mid-point of the CRR and with relatively tight clustering around
the CRR, but after muscimol injection the response times were more widely
distributed and most errors occurred as excessive shortening of the response
times (see Fig. 3B–D).
It was noteworthy that a peak of the interval response density tended to shift
earlier (Fig. 3B–D).
The tendency toward excessively early button presses indicated that interference
specifically with hand movements was unlikely to be the cause of inaccurate
interval signaling. Thus, the PFC inactivation data provided additional evidence
for the role of area 9 neurons in time reproduction.
Figure 3
Effect of muscimol injections into area 9 on the accuracy of time
reproduction in monkey J.
(A) Change in the error rate for all of the 2-s, 4-s, and 7-s tasks.
(B–D) Comparison of the frequency of interval responses between
the pre- and the post-injections in the 2-s (B), 4-s (C), and 7-s (D)
tasks. CRR, correct response range (reproduction accuracy
within±15% of the target interval).
Effect of muscimol injections into area 9 on the accuracy of time
reproduction in monkey J.
(A) Change in the error rate for all of the 2-s, 4-s, and 7-s tasks.
(B–D) Comparison of the frequency of interval responses between
the pre- and the post-injections in the 2-s (B), 4-s (C), and 7-s (D)
tasks. CRR, correct response range (reproduction accuracy
within±15% of the target interval).
Discussion
Our data demonstrate that time is represented in the PFC or neural networks involving
the PFC. Previous studies have shown that neurons in the PFC participate in many
aspects of cognitive behaviors based on reward [29], evaluating self-generated
decisions [30],
categorization [31], procedural learning [32], functional separation of
“what” and “when” [33], and time prediction and
detection [34].
These earlier observations encouraged our detailed analysis of area 9 neuronal
activities in critical aspects of temporal processing.An important finding in our study was that a group of PFC neurons (DR neurons)
displayed activities just after the presentation of the target duration ended, which
were specific for multi-second intervals presented during the duration-presentation
period. Time-related neuronal activity has been reported in various motor areas of
the primate frontal cortex, such as the dorsal premotor cortex [35], the presupplementary motor
area (pre-SMA) [36], [37] and the supplementary eye field (SEF) (23). Repetitive
transcranial magnetic stimulation shows the evidence of role of the dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex in short (0.5 s) and long (2 s) interval timing in human subjects
[38]. In a
rather different task not involving the reproduction of time intervals, Genovesio et
al. have shown that there was post-delay spike activity in areas 46, 8, 9, and
rostral 6 that was specific for each of the elapsed delay periods (1 s, 1.5 s, and 2
s) in primates [19]. Yet, Matell, Meck, Jin, and their colleagues have
provided strong evidence of neural representation of multi-hundred millisecond time
in dorsolateral PFC-basal ganglia circuits [39], [40], [41]. From these observations, a
hypothesis arises that PFC neurons or the related neural networks may change their
activities by practice in response to varying elapsed times, thereby detecting or
recognizing individual time lengths up to 7 seconds.Beyond the time-perceptive neurons, the present study has revealed that, during the
interval-response period, another group of PFC neurons (IG neurons) displays higher
activity specific for different presented time lengths. Our results have clearly
demonstrated that, in the primate, there are PFC neurons that can generate distinct
time intervals up to 7 seconds. This may provide a useful clue for understanding how
signals derived from DR neurons are decoded to motor output, in order to control the
timing of the button press after the time interval. We hypothesize that these IG
neurons may provide this control.Given the theory that striatal activity may be the final output of an internal clock
[10], and the
anatomical evidence that the striatum receives input from area 9 [42], the
cortico-striatal projection from area 9 may play a key role in the temporal command
for action. Others have suggested that corticostriatal interactions may be critical
to reward-enhanced learning [43], and future studies might address how area 9 neurons
become tuned to specific multisecond time intervals by simultaneously recording area
9 and striatal neurons during training for such tasks.Is it possible that the time interval-specific activity that we documented was merely
an epiphenomenon? We think not, for several reasons. First, the time
interval-specific activity was highly represented among cortical cells in the area
9. The cells involved in time interval, either the DR cells or the IG cells were not
a small subpopulation, but approximately formed one out of three of the whole
population under study. This proportion of time interval cells in cortical area 9
was similarly observed between two monkeys in the current study. Further, for each
of the highly practiced time intervals, each monkey had approximately equal
proportions of the DR neurons and of IG neurons, while it was rare that DR and IG
functions were combined in a single cell. Second, our recording location, area 9 is
characterized by a particular firing pattern of the full layer cortex construction
that is distinguishable from the posterior motor areas, which lack layer IV.
Accordingly, we did not find evidence that area 9 cells responded to eye movements
or hand movements which occurred during the responses used to indicate the
internally generated time intervals. The task in our study required only limited eye
and hand movements. The monkeys placed the hand on a sensor point at the beginning
of the trial, and kept the hand on that point until the end of the trial, after
reward delivery. To indicate the internally generated time interval, the monkey
needed to move the thumb only a few millimeters to press the button. We monitored
eye movements and hand movements, but we did not see individual area 9 neurons that
responded to eye or hand movements that occurred during our task. These observations
indicated that our recording area was separated from motor areas such as the pre-SMA
or SEF. Finally, the most direct evidence of the involvement of prefrontal cortex
comes from the results of muscimol interference. We found that the accuracy of time
interval production was disrupted.In conclusion, different groups of PFC neurons in area 9 had enhancement in neuronal
discharge just after the duration-presentation period or during the
interval-reproduction period, with tuning to specific lengths of time. These results
suggest that the PFC neurons contribute to both perception and generation of
multi-second time intervals.Duration-recognizing-related activity. Activity of individual DR
cells specific for 1 s (A) or 5 s (B) in monkey M. Shown in histogram and
raster format is spike discharge during the interim
(post-duration-presentation) period of each time task. Note the
time-specific cell activity that is seen during the 1-s period after cue
offset.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.Interval-generating-related activity. Activity of individual IG
cells specific for 1 s (A) or 5 s (B) in monkey M. Shown in histogram and
raster format is spike discharge during the interval-response period of each
time task.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.
Authors: James Heron; Craig Aaen-Stockdale; John Hotchkiss; Neil W Roach; Paul V McGraw; David Whitaker Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 5.349