Main Menu (Mobile)- Block
- Our Research
-
Support Teams
- Overview
- Anatomy and Histology
- Cryo-Electron Microscopy
- Electron Microscopy
- Flow Cytometry
- Fly Facility
- Gene Targeting and Transgenics
- Immortalized Cell Line Culture
- Integrative Imaging
- Janelia Experimental Technology
- Mass Spectrometry
- Media Prep
- Molecular Genomics
- Primary & iPS Cell Culture
- Project Pipeline Support
- Project Technical Resources
- Quantitative Genomics
- Scientific Computing Software
- Scientific Computing Systems
- Viral Tools
- Vivarium
- Open Science
- You + Janelia
- About Us
Main Menu - Block
- Overview
- Anatomy and Histology
- Cryo-Electron Microscopy
- Electron Microscopy
- Flow Cytometry
- Fly Facility
- Gene Targeting and Transgenics
- Immortalized Cell Line Culture
- Integrative Imaging
- Janelia Experimental Technology
- Mass Spectrometry
- Media Prep
- Molecular Genomics
- Primary & iPS Cell Culture
- Project Pipeline Support
- Project Technical Resources
- Quantitative Genomics
- Scientific Computing Software
- Scientific Computing Systems
- Viral Tools
- Vivarium
Abstract
Phase precession is a well known phenomenon in which a hippocampal place cell will fire action potentials at successively earlier phases (relative to the theta-band oscillations recorded in the local field potential) as an animal moves through the cell’s receptive field (also known as a place field). We present a model in which CA1 pyramidal cell spiking is driven by dual input components arising from CA3 and EC3. The receptive fields of these two input components overlap but are offset in space from each other such that as the animal moves through the model place field, action potentials are driven first by the CA3 input component and then the EC3 input component. As CA3 synaptic input is known to arrive in CA1 at a later theta phase than EC3 input (Mizuseki et al., 2009; Montgomery et al., 2009), CA1 spiking advances in phase as the model transitions from CA3-driven spiking to EC3-driven spiking. Here spike phase is a function of animal location, placing our results in agreement with many experimental observations characterizing CA1 phase precession (O’Keefe and Recce, 1993; Huxter et al., 2003; Geisler et al., 2007). We predict that experimental manipulations that dramatically enhance or disrupt activity in either of these areas should have a significant effect on phase precession observed in CA1.