• Date: 2026-08-11
• Time: 09:00AM (PT)
• Location: Teams Meeting

Agenda

Round-table update on progress around figures 6, 7 and 9 for the Predictive processing data release manuscript

Meeting Recording

.

Meeting Notes

Receptive Field Analysis and Comparison Across Modalities: Marcel and Nicholas presented and discussed their analyses of receptive fields using both mesoscope and neuropixels data, with Jerome, Alexander, and Carter providing feedback and suggestions for manuscript figures and future directions.

Zebra Stimulus Analysis Pipeline: Marcel described the analysis pipeline for the zebra stimulus, which involves convolving the stimulus with Gabor filters of varying properties (position, orientation, size, frequency, phase) to generate activation maps, then correlating these with neuronal signals to produce spatial correlation maps and receptive fields.

Comparison of Mesoscope and Neuropixels Data: Marcel reported that receptive fields could be reliably extracted from both mesoscope and neuropixels data, with some differences in delay and size distributions between primary visual cortex and lateral visual areas, and noted the need for further statistical comparison.

Optimization of Analysis Parameters: Marcel explained the optimization of signal integration duration and delay parameters, showing that the optimal delay for alignment between stimulus and neural response was around 100 ms for most planes, with some outliers due to low ROI counts.

Recommendations for Manuscript Figures: Jerome and Marcel discussed which figures would be most valuable for the manuscript, agreeing to focus on showing the existence and extraction of receptive fields across modalities and possibly including supplementary figures to explain the analysis process.

Future Directions and Group Coordination: Participants agreed on the value of comparing receptive field properties across modalities and discussed organizing a dedicated meeting to align methods and results, with Nicholas and Marcel suggesting the use of unique identifiers for ROIs to facilitate cross-method comparisons.

Population-Level Analysis and Representational Stability: Nicholas presented a population-level analysis using PCA and central kernel alignment (CKA) to assess the stability of representational geometry across recording sessions and subjects, with feedback and technical discussion from Alexander and Jerome.

PCA-Based Population Tuning Analysis: Nicholas described constructing ROI-by-condition matrices for each imaging plane, applying PCA to identify principal components of population tuning, and visualizing how these components relate to spatial and orientation tuning in the visual cortex.

Spatial Organization of Tuning: Nicholas showed that similarly tuned ROIs tend to form local clusters rather than smooth gradients across the imaging field, indicating spatial heterogeneity in population tuning.

Representational Stability Across Sessions and Subjects: Using CKA, Nicholas quantified the stability of representational geometry within subjects across sessions and across different subjects, finding that stability increases with imaging depth in both primary and lateral visual cortex.

Technical Feedback and Future Analysis: Alexander suggested visualizing principal component loadings for better interpretability and discussed the potential for a dedicated study on representational drift and layer-specific effects, while Jerome provided guidance on anatomical layer assignments and documentation.

Figure Selection for Manuscript: Nicholas and Jerome agreed that figures demonstrating chronic stability and population-level tuning across modalities would be valuable for the manuscript, with Nicholas confirming the feasibility of generating these figures.

Preliminary LFP Analysis and Figure Planning: Antonio Velazquez presented preliminary analyses of LFP data from the predictive processing dataset, focusing on gamma power changes during different stimulus conditions, and received guidance from Jerome on figure development for the manuscript.

LFP Gamma Power Analysis: Antonio analyzed LFP traces from visual cortex during standard, sensory-motor, and sequence mismatch paradigms, finding increased gamma power (20–30 Hz) during orientation changes and decreased power during stimulus omissions.

Layer-Specific and Paradigm-Specific Observations: The analysis focused on layer 2/3 across nine animals, revealing that gamma power increases were specific to stimulus violations, with more complex patterns observed in sequence mismatch conditions.

Guidance for Figure Development: Jerome recommended creating a figure that highlights LFP data and gamma power analysis, suggesting that even a single-area (V1) analysis would be valuable for the data release manuscript, and discussed the potential for a dynamic viewer to aid data exploration.

Next Steps for LFP Analysis: Antonio agreed to develop a prototype figure for the next meeting, considering the inclusion of additional brain areas if feasible.

Onboarding and Project Participation Guidance: Jerome, Alexander, and Nicholas provided onboarding advice and project participation guidance to new participants, including C, outlining opportunities for contribution and the use of the discussion forum for coordination.

Opportunities for New Contributors: Jerome explained that participants can choose modalities and analyses of interest, highlighting areas such as oddball response analysis and context-dependent neuronal responses as open for further investigation.

Background and Interests of New Participants: C introduced their background in neuroscience and computational analysis, expressing interest in gaining experience and contributing to the project.

Coordination and Communication Channels: Alexander and Jerome recommended using the discussion forum for coordination, sharing resources, and organizing focused sessions, while also providing contact information for direct communication if needed.

Coordination of Receptive Field Analysis Efforts: Marcel, Nicholas, Carter, and Alexander discussed the need for unique identifiers for ROIs and proposed organizing a dedicated meeting to compare receptive field analysis methods and results across modalities.

Unique Identifier Scheme for ROIs: Participants agreed that a unique identifier for each ROI should include subject, session, plane, and index information to enable cross-method and cross-modality comparisons.

Planning a Dedicated Comparison Meeting: Marcel and Nicholas proposed scheduling a meeting in a few weeks for those involved in receptive field analysis to compare results and methods, with coordination to occur via the discussion forum.

SLAP2 and Future Analysis Directions: Ido inquired about receptive field analysis for the SLAP2 dataset, with Jerome providing information on ongoing work and encouraging review of previous sessions for context.

Status of SLAP2 Receptive Field Analysis: Jerome indicated that Sarah Ruediger and colleagues have been working on SLAP2 analysis, with more updates expected in future meetings, and recommended that Ido review prior session recordings for background.