Cogs 107b – Systems Neuroscience www.dnitz.com Lec14_02252010 learning and memory I principle: ‘fire together – wire together’ <ul><ul><li>"The general idea is an old one, that any two cells or systems of cells that are repeatedly active at the same time will tend to become 'associated', so that activity in one facilitates activity in the other." ( Hebb 1949 ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>"When one cell repeatedly assists in firing another, the axon of the first cell develops synaptic knobs (or enlarges them if they already exist) in contact with the soma of the second cell." ( Hebb 1949 ) </li></ul></ul>
changes in synaptic efficacy can reflect either changes in depolarization caused by increases or decreases in the amount of neurotransmitter released by an action potential (presynaptic change) and/or increases or decreases in the amount of response of the postsynaptic neuron to the same amount of glutamate released by the presynaptic neuron post-synaptic changes usually reflect changes in the shape of the synapse, changes in the number of ionotropic receptors, changes in the kinetics of ionotropic receptors, and/or development or retraction of contacts (synapses) between neurons changes in synaptic efficacy often depend on the timing and/or amount of co-activity between two neurons (as in ‘fire together, wire together’) for any two connected neurons, the co-activity rules for synaptic change may differ greatly co-activity leading to changes in synaptic efficacy may depend on the presence or absence of a third party such as a neuromodulator or a peptide synaptic potentiation (as in figure) and synaptic depression are changes in the amount of depolarization in a post-synaptic neuron when an input neuron (presynaptic) releases neurotransmitter following an action potential – such alterations in depolarization amount are termed changes in ‘synaptic efficacy’
visualization of potentiating, depressing, and unchanged synapses following stimulation of hippocampal CA3 inputs into CA1 region of hippocampus Becker et al., Neuron, 2008 potentiation depression unchanged Dolan et al., Neuron, 2007 dendritic spines of cortical neurons in fragile-X mice (mental retardation) are longer / immature mature synaptic spine immature synaptic spine
Bi and Poo, ARN, 2001 spike timing dependent plasticity: changes in synaptic ‘efficacy’ between two neurons (one presynaptic, the other postsynaptic) related to the relative timing of their action potentials time of firing of post-synaptic neuron minus time of firing of pre-synaptic neuron pre-synaptic neuron fires before post-synaptic neuron post-synaptic neuron fires before pre-synaptic neuron intracellular electrode for recording of synaptic potentials and action potentials or for stimulation of an action potential synaptic potential in post-synaptic neuron resulting from a single presynaptic spike synaptic depression (or depotentiation) synaptic potentiation
spike-timing (pre-post) synaptic change spike-timing (pre-post) spike-timing (pre-post) spike-timing (pre-post) synaptic change synaptic change synaptic change no ACh, no NE (as in NREM sleep) ACh + NE (as in waking) NE, no ACh (??) ACh, no NE (e.g., REM sleep) co-activity rules for synaptic efficacy change depend on neuromodulatory systems
learning 101: Pavlovian fear conditioning – association of an initially neutral tone (CS) with a foot-shock results in ‘freezing’ responses when the tone alone is played lateral amygdala central amygdala auditory cortex / auditory thalamus (neurons excited by sound stimulus - CS) somatosensory cortex / somatosensory thalamus (neurons excited by shock stimulus - US) before pairing after pairing freezing response, increased heart rate, etc. hippocampus (place information) IT (visual item information) conditioned stimulus (CS) conditioned + unconditioned stimulus (US) conditioned stimulus curiosity ‘ shock and awe’ (freezing) conditioned freezing
Doyere et al., NN, 2007 re-remembering: memories in the amygdala are ‘labile’ – their recall makes them vulnerable to erasure or consolidation shock associated with 2 different CS’s introduce drug that blocks potentiation (U0126) prior to drug, increased freezing to both tones following pairing with shock (standard fear conditioning) after drug, reduced freezing to only the tone that was replayed
curing PTSD by taking advantage of the ‘labile’ nature of some memories: Day 1 : Humans develop eye-blink responses to tones (the conditioned stimuli - CS) paired with shocks (the unconditioned stimuli – US). Day 2 : Two groups are exposed to the CS after having been given placebo (top graphs) or propranolol (middle graphs), a compound that blocks the action of norepinephrine (NE). A third group is given propranolol, but not exposed to the CS. Day 3 : An set of ‘extinction’ trials (presentation of CS in absence of US) is given and eye-blink responses are recorded. Blocking the action of NE on day 2 is shown to have the effect of ‘erasing’ the CS-US association. Day 4 : Usually, as in the placebo condition, the US given alone reverses the extinction of the CS-US association that was achieved on day 3. Blocking the action of NE on day negates this. day 1 day 2 day 3 day 4
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.