10/n We are extremely grateful to the funding from NIH that allowed this work to happen, and for the continuing support: we are now using these methods to understand local computations performed by inhibitory interneurons and their state dependence.

9/n We think that this differing balance of local excitation and inhibition allows for A1 to maintain its sparse representation of sensory stimuli, and for PPC to integrate information across more neurons and trigger attractor states.

8/n In PPC, the central zone was wider, and the surround was weaker

7/n In A1, the central zone was narrow, and the surround was strong and wide.

6/n BUT the relative sizes of the network center and surround were different in auditory and parietal cortex:

5/n We replicated the stereotyped influence pattern seen previously by others (heavily inspired by @selmaan.bsky.social's work in V1): positive influence is restricted to a tight spatial zone closely neighboring the stimulated neuron, while activity in the surrounding region tends to be suppressed.

4/n We stimulated single excitatory neurons in A1 and PPC, and mapped the influence of each neuron on the surrounding population in layer 2/3 by imaging GCaMP.

3/n Previously, we compared population activity dynamics in auditory (A1) and posterior parietal cortex (PPC): In A1 population activity is sparse and decorrelated, while in PPC activity is more highly correlated, and wondered if these differences are driven by intrinsic network structure.

2/n We were motivated to do the study to try to explain differences in the spatial and temporal dynamics of population activity that have been described across the cortical processing hierarchy by many groups.

Happened to be at that one too, would have been nice to run into you!

Does anyone know if zoom study sections also have to be posted to the federal register?