, 2008). A significant finding from our model was that top-down attentional signals and simulated mAChRs decreased correlations between excitatory–inhibitory and inhibitory–inhibitory neurons in the cortex; however, excitatory–excitatory correlations remained unchanged (Figs 8 and 9). Several experimental studies have shown that attention and neuromodulation decrease interneuronal noise correlations (Cohen & Maunsell, 2009; Goard & Dan, 2009; Mitchell et al., 2009). In fact, Cohen and Maunsell showed that

decorrelation caused more than 80% of the attentional improvement in the population signal. This suggested that decreasing noise Dabrafenib purchase correlations was more important than firing rate-related

biases. These studies, however, did not identify the types of neurons they were recording from, which may be difficult using conventional http://www.selleckchem.com/products/obeticholic-acid.html recording techniques. Our model predicts that the decorrelations seen in these studies may be excitatory–inhibitory pairs of neurons rather than excitatory–excitatory pairs. In our model, we found no change in excitatory–excitatory correlations when applying top-down attention and stimulating the BF, but saw a significant decrease in excitatory–inhibitory and inhibitory–inhibitory correlations. In this view, excitatory–excitatory pairs are able to maintain a constant, low correlation state regardless of the amount of excitatory drive (which should Olopatadine increase correlations) due to fast-spiking inhibitory neurons (Fig. 13B). Because muscarinic receptors caused a further decrease in excitatory–inhibitory correlations, we suggest that they may act as a buffer, absorbing increases in excitation that

occur with attention and BF stimulation by changing either the inhibitory spike waveform (i.e. inhibitory speed) or the inhibitory strength. A recently published study further substantiates our finding that excitatory–inhibitory pairs of neurons have stronger decorrelation than excitatory–excitatory pairs. Middleton et al. (2012) were able to distinguish between excitatory and inhibitory neurons and looked at the correlations between these pairs in layer 2/3 of the rat’s whisker barrel cortex. They compared correlations during spontaneous and sensory stimulated states and found that excitatory–inhibitory pairs of neurons became decorrelated when sensory stimuli were presented to the animal, whereas excitatory–excitatory pairs of neurons remained at low levels of correlations. Our model suggests that the spiking pattern of the inhibitory neuron is important for maintaining neuronal decorrelation when further excitatory drive is applied (Fig. 10). Given excitatory–inhibitory decorrelation and minimal excitatory–excitatory correlations both in our model and in Middleton et al.