3C), whereas a higher discharge rate of neurons with receptive fields away from the target was associated with a higher probability of an error (Fig. 4C). The effect was present both in the delayed match-to-sample (Figs 3 and 4) and reaction-time version of the task (Fig. 7A). This influence of firing rate prior to the appearance of a stimulus on the eventual behavioral choice is presumably the result of random fluctuation in firing rate from trial to trial, prior to any stimulus information, similar to a bias factor.
This neural correlate of a decision bias has been described in area LIP before, in the context of other tasks (Shadlen Z-VAD-FMK supplier & Newsome, 2001). Our present results suggest that the effect is specific for LIP and not present in dlPFC, even though the latter area is strongly responding to the task and represents the target stimuli. Secondly, we found that this preferential correlation of area LIP activity with behavior was not present
throughout the trial, but that dlPFC activity began to exert significant influence Ixazomib in vivo on behavioral choice during the cue presentation (as did activity in area LIP). When the stimulus appeared in the receptive field, higher rates of PFC neurons were more likely to be associated with correct detection of the salient stimulus (Fig. 3C). No significant choice probability was found, for either dlPFC or LIP, in the condition involving presentation of the distractor in the receptive field. This result is similar to the choice probability
of middle temporal neurons, Reverse transcriptase which is greater than chance for the neurons’ preferred direction of motion while it remains around chance level for a non-preferred direction (Bosking & Maunsell, 2011). A significantly higher correlation of dlPFC compared to LIP activity on behavioral choice during the stimulus presentation was also detected in the NoGo condition of the reaction-time task (Fig. 7C). Finally, we observed that reaction time was determined primarily by neuronal activity in area LIP; a significant negative correlation between firing rate and reaction time was present only for LIP neurons (Fig. 10). Previous studies have revealed a similar relationship between neuronal firing rate and reaction time for the FEF (Hanes & Schall, 1996). Our results suggest that this is not present for dlPFC, even though robust neuronal responses were elicited in this area, in the reaction-time version of our task. In an attempt to gain further insight into the differential effects of neuronal activity on behavior, we compared the variability of neuronal responses in the two areas. In principle, lower variability of neuronal responses (e.g. in area LIP during the fixation period) may be associated with higher influence on behavioral choice.