Abstract
We present a dataset of 1809 single neurons recorded from the human medial temporal lobe (amygdala and hippocampus) and medial frontal lobe (anterior cingulate cortex, pre-supplementary motor area, ventral medial prefrontal cortex) across 41 sessions from 21 patients that underwent seizure monitoring with depth electrodes. Subjects performed a screening task (907 neurons) to identify images for which highly selective cells were present. Subjects then performed a working memory task (902 neurons), in which they were sequentially presented with 1–3 images for which highly selective cells were present and, following a maintenance period, were asked if the probe was identical to one of the maintained images. This Neurodata Without Borders formatted dataset includes spike times, extracellular spike waveforms, stimuli presented, behavior, electrode locations, and subject demographics. As validation, we replicate previous findings on the selectivity of concept cells and their persistent activity during working memory maintenance. This large dataset of rare human single-neuron recordings and behavior enables the investigation of the neural mechanisms of working memory in humans.
Similar content being viewed by others
Background & Summary
Working memory (WM) plays a crucial role in various cognitive functions, including decision-making, attention, and problem-solving1. Current models of WM suggest that one mechanism by which memoranda can be maintained is through persistent activity2,3,4. It is thought that a distributed network of brain areas supports WM maintenance, as indicated in prior studies in nonhuman primates5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. However, direct translation of findings from animals to humans is challenging due to the inherent differences13,14 in brain organization and cognitive abilities. In rare clinical circumstances, it is possible to invasively record electrophysiological signals from humans at the single-neuron resolution level using depth electrodes while subjects are performing cognitive tasks. These opportunities have provided invaluable insights into the mechanisms of human working memory15,16,17,18,19. This work has revealed that within the human medial temporal lobe (MTL), a subset of highly selective concept cells can remain persistently active for several seconds during working memory maintenance15. We have further shown that the activity of these persistently active cells allows decoding of working memory content and predicts working memory quality and accuracy, thereby indicating that these cells are part of the neuronal substrate of WM maintenance15,20,21. Remarkably, in contrast to the MTL, there were few selective concept cells in the medial frontal cortex (MFC) areas we recorded from. Instead, we have characterized maintenance and probe cells in the MFC, whose activity are not WM-content selective but instead is predictive of working memory quality alone. These findings indicate that the role of the MFC in WM maintenance is control and monitoring rather than maintaining memory content22,23. This data descriptor accompanies a public release of this cumulative dataset in the Neural Data without Borders (NWB) format24 hosted on the DANDI data archive. We chose NWB as the data format for this release because it is a standardized format well suited for cellular-level data around which a mature ecosystem of APIs, data archives, analysis software, policies, and cloud-based compute platforms has recently emerged. While significant work was required to convert the data into this relatively complex format (containing all needed data in a single file), we chose to pursue this route given these significant benefits. We note that in contrast, iEEG-BIDS25 specifies a directory structure rather than a data format. We chose DANDI as our data archive due to its close integration with NWB, the automatic and extensive validation process that is enforced before upload, and the suitability of enabling large scale meta-analyses that DANDI enables25.
To investigate the mechanisms underlying WM, we employed a modified version of the well-established Sternberg26,27 task that utilizes images as stimuli (Fig. 1b). We have used this identical task across multiple studies15,20,28, the data for which are all included in the present dataset. Our dataset includes recordings obtained during the Sternberg task and a preceding screening task (Fig 1a) in both the medial temporal lobe (MTL) and the medial frontal lobe (MFL) regions. In total, the dataset comprises electrophysiology recordings of 902 neurons from Sternberg sessions and 907 neurons from screening sessions and encompasses data from 21 patients. During the Sternberg task, participants were presented with a set of images for memorization. Each trial consisted of 1–3 images, followed by a maintenance period and a probe image. Participants then indicated whether the probe image belonged to the initial set of images. The 1–3 images were pseudo-randomly selected from the 5 images that elicited the highest selective response in the preceding screening task (Fig. 1a). The stimuli used in the task encompassed a diverse range of content, including images of animals, objects, people, and other complex natural scenes. This allowed for the investigation of neural responses to different types of visual stimuli. In addition to single-neuron recordings, the dataset includes behavioral data, providing a comprehensive view of participants’ performance during the task. For technical validation, we include spike sorting quality metrics as well as replication of prior results regarding the activity of concept cells during WM maintenance. Potential applications for the use of this dataset include the testing of predictions made by working memory models1,29, and analysis of population-level neuronal dynamics30,31,32 that necessitates hundreds of neurons to be implemented.
Methods
The methods used to acquire and process this dataset have been previously published15,20 but are abbreviated here for convenience.
Subjects
In total, 41 recording sessions were completed across 21 patients with intractable localization-related epilepsy (Table 1). Patients underwent intracranial monitoring using depth electrodes for seizure localization. Electrode locations were solely based on clinical criteria. Voluntary participation in this study was offered to all patients that underwent monitoring for seizures with depth electrodes at participating study sites. Patient data has been de-identified, with each patient identified only by a unique patient identifier string. The identifier is comprised of a numerical patient ID, followed by an abbreviation of the recording institution (CS: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, HMH: Huntington Memorial Hospital) (e.g., P42CS). All patients volunteered to participate in this study and provided written informed consent. Participants’ age ranged from 17 to 71 and in cases where subjects were under 18 years of age, informed consent was also obtained from the participant’s legal guardian. All protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (IRB: 13369), Huntington Memorial Hospital (IRB: 27132), and the California Institute of Technology (IRB: 16-0692 F).
Electrodes and data acquisition
Recordings were performed using commercially available FDA-approved hybrid macro-micro depth electrodes (Ad-Tech Medical). The hybrid macro electrode consists of 4–8 cylindrical platinum-iridium ECoG electrodes spaced at 5 mm intervals along a hollow polyurethane shaft. The microwires are a bundle of eight wires (40um diameter) threaded through the macroelectrode shaft33,34 to the target area. Each microwire was locally referenced to a common microwire in the same bundle, allowing for the recording of activity from seven microwires in each area. The continuously acquired raw signal was recorded broadband (0.1–9000 Hz filter) and sampled at 32 kHz using either a Neuralynx ATLAS or Neuralynx Cheetah System (Neuralynx Inc.). Channels exhibiting inter-ictal epileptic activity at the time of recording were excluded from analysis.
Spike detection and sorting
Spike detection and sorting were performed with OSort, an open-source semiautomatic template-matching algorithm35. First, the signal from each channel (i.e., microelectrode) was filtered with a zero-phase lag filter in the 300–3000 Hz band. Spikes were detected using the energy power method, consisting of threshold crossings of the energy signal computed by convolving the filtered raw signal with a kernel of approximate width of an action potential35,36. To assess the quality of identified clusters, the following criteria were used: (i) firing rate stability, (ii) waveform amplitude stability, (iii) interspike interval (ISI) distribution, and (iv) violations of the refractory period. Similar-looking clusters were merged. All clusters that passed the given criteria were stored and are provided as a list of timestamps. Spike sorting was done independently for the two tasks (Screening, Sternberg).
MRI Processing and electrode localization
Electrodes were localized based on pre-operative structural MRIs and post-operative MRIs and/or CTs. Brains were extracted from the pre and post-operative scans37, and the post-operative scan was aligned to the pre-operative scan using Freesurfer’s mri_robust_register38. If a post-operative MRI was unavailable, the post-operative CT scan was co-registered with a rigid (6 DOF) transform using the BRAINSFit39 program to the pre-operative MRI using 3DSlicer40. A forward mapping of the pre-operative scan to the CIT168 template brain41 was computed using a concatenation of an affine transformation and a symmetric image normalization (SyN) diffeomorphic transform from the ANTs suite of programs42. This transform was then applied to the post-operative scan. This resulted in a post-operative scan overlayed onto the MNI152-registered version of the CIT168 template brain41. Freesurfer’s Freeview program was then used to mark the electrodes as point sets to determine the locations of the microwire tips. The electrode positions are provided in 3D but are projected onto the 2D sagittal plane for visualization only (Fig. 1e).
Psychophysics
The tasks have been previously described but are summarized here for convenience15.
Subjects performed two tasks: a screening task, followed by a working memory task (the latter is referred to as the “Sternberg task”).
Screening Task: Images to be shown were selected based on a participant’s interest, and 54–64 of these images were shown six times each in randomized order for 1 s each, with an interstimulus interval of 0.016–0.2 s (Fig. 1a). Images shown were approximately 9° × 9° in size on the screen. Every few trials (randomized), a control question was asked that was related to the previously displayed image (i.e., “Did the last image present a person/landscape/animal?”). After the screening task, the data was rapidly analyzed to determine the five images that elicited the best responses, using an F-statistic computed by a one-way 1xN ANOVA (n = number of images, i.e. 54–64) for the mean response in a 200–1000 ms window following stimulus onset, with the image as a factor (See Identification: Concept Cells). If less than five neurons showed significantly selective responses (p< 0.05), the remaining images were selected based on the strongest non-selective responses. The five chosen images were then used for the Sternberg task.
Working Memory Task: A modified version of the Sternberg27 task was used that employed images rather than the traditional digits as the memorization material (Fig. 1b). For each trial, a fixation cross was shown for 900–1000 ms, followed by the sequential presentation of the 1–3 images to be memorized (‘encoding’) in the given trial. Each image was shown for 1 s, followed by a blank screen for a randomized period of 1–200 ms. Images shown were approximately 9° × 9° in size. Subjects were instructed to memorize the 1–3 images in each trial. The terms’ encoding 1’, ‘encoding 2’, & ‘encoding 3’ refer to the 1–3 images presented in each trial. After the encoding stage, there was a maintenance (delay) period of 2.5–2.8 s, during which only the word “hold” was shown on the screen. At the end of the delay period, a probe stimulus was displayed, and subjects were asked to indicate whether the probe stimulus was one of the immediately preceding 1–3 images or not. Participants responded by pressing a green or red button on an external response box (RB-844, Cedrus Inc.), the color corresponding to ‘yes’ and ‘no’ being shown at the top of the screen for each probe trial. The locations of the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ buttons were switched halfway through the experiment. Subjects were asked to respond as quickly as possible. The probe stimulus was present until subjects pressed one of the two buttons. Each session consisted of 108 or 135 trials, depending on the task variant, and the images were displayed in pseudorandom order. The pictures shown to each participant were unique and were determined based on the results of a screening task that occurred 2–3 hours prior (as described above), except for one participant who did not undergo the screening procedure (see Table 1).
The screening and Sternberg task were run on a notebook computer, and both were implemented in MATLAB using the Psychophysics Toolbox43. Subject responses and stimulus onset/offset markers were sent to the acquisition system via TTLs sent over a parallel port (Tables 2–3).
Cell selection: concept cells
Single units were considered visually selective concept cells44 if their firing rates significantly covaried as a function of picture identity in a 200–1000 ms window following stimulus onset. Concept cells were identified (P < 0.05) using a permuted one-way ANOVA with x groups, with x the number of unique images presented to the subject in a session. For the screening task, x varied between 54–64. For the Sternberg task, x was 5. If a cell passed the ANOVA test, we in addition tested whether the response to the image with the maximal response was significantly larger than that for all the other images (P < 0.05, permutation t-test). A cell that satisfied both criteria was considered a concept cell for the Sternberg task. We note that by ‘concept cell’ we refer to cells that are visually selective. We did not assess or require selectivity for the same concept in other modalities (text, auditory) as is sometimes required for a cell to qualify as a concept cell in some other studies44,45.
Cell selection: maintenance cells
A single unit was considered as a maintenance cell if its response increased significantly in the maintenance period relative to the baseline period. This increase must be invariant to the identity of the stimulus that was held in memory. Maintenance cells were identified by comparing the mean firing rate during the maintenance period (0–2500 ms) to the firing rate during the presentation of the fixation cross at the start of a trial (500 ms) (P < 0.05, permutation test). If a concept cell also qualified to be a maintenance cell using this criterion, an additional test was run to assure that the maintenance activity for all non-preferred stimuli was significantly higher than during the baseline. This second requirement ensures that strong concept cells are not automatically also classified as maintenance cells.
Cell selection: probe cells
A single unit was considered as a probe cell if its response was significantly higher during the probe period relative to both the encoding and maintenance periods. Probe cells were identified using two separate permutation t-tests (P < 0.05) between the firing rates following probe onset (200–1000 ms) and the firing rates in the encoding (200–1000 ms) and maintenance (0–2500 ms) periods.
Data Records
All data46 associated with this release is available on the DANDI Archive (dandiset #469), a BRAIN Initiative-supported archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data. Two NWB files are provided for each subject, one for each task (Screening, Sternberg). The filenames are of the form ‘sub-[Subject ID]-ses-[Task ID].’ The task ID indicates the type of session performed, (1: Screening (SC), 2: Sternberg (SB)). Each file contains an ‘identifier’ field containing a string of the form ‘TaskID_subjectID_nativeSubjectID’. Task ID equates to SB (Sternberg) or SC (Screening), Subject ID is a unique index into the internal data structures (see Table 1), and Native Subject ID is the patient identified as described above.
Structure of the NWB File
Each file contains all the data available for a single task for a given subject. The file format is the Neurodata Without Borders: Neurophysiology 2.0 (NWB:N) format. NWB:N24,47 is a standardized environment for disseminating neurophysiological data. NWB files can be read using standard APIs that are available for different operating systems and programming languages.
An NWB file comprises groups (like a directory) that store different subsets of data with pre-defined names and data types. For our dataset (Fig. 2), we used the containers ‘general’ (metadata for subjects & recording devices), ‘acquisition’ (raw data streams), ‘intervals’ (trial timestamps and trial-specific behavioral flags), ‘stimulus’ (images presented to the subject), and ‘units’ (spike times of putative single units). The ‘description’ field in each container was utilized to give further information on the structure and usage of the data. At the top level of each NWB file, additional meta data is stored in the fields ‘identifier,’ ‘file_create_date,’ ‘session_description,’ ‘session_start_time,’ & ‘timestamps_reference_time.’ All data is stored as prescribed by the NWB standard.
NWB File content: general group
The \general group contains metadata. At the top level of \general, metadata about the experiment is stored in the fields ‘experiment_description,’ ‘experimenter,’ ‘institution,’ ‘keywords,’ ‘lab,’ ‘notes,’ ‘related_publications,’ ‘session_id,’ and ‘source_script.’ Electrode information is provided in general\extracellular_ephys\electrodes as a column-based table, with one row per electrode. The electrode ID, the filter applied, the group name, the brain area, and the x/y/z coordinates in MNI space are specified for each electrode. Each channel also contains a soft link to an ElectrodeGroup container in \general\extracellular_ephys. This subgroup then links to a Device subgroup in general\devices that indicates the device used for signal acquisition, which here is the Neuralynx Inc. amplifier (“Neuralynx-Atlas” or “Neuralynx-Cheetah”). Electrode IDs are referenced in other parts of the NWB file when necessary (see NWB File Content: Units Group). Additionally, the custom field ‘origChannel’ in the electrodes table denotes the channel number of the native recording system. Lastly, subject metadata is provided in the general\subject subgroup (subject’s age, sex, species, and subject ID).
NWB File content: acquisition group
The \acquisition group contains the raw stream of TTLs to align the behavior with the neural data. The acquisition\events subgroup contains the stream of TTL event markers and the timestamps at which they occurred. The following TTL values were used for Sternberg sessions (Table 2): Start of Experiment (61), Fixation Cross Onset (11), Picture #1 Shown (1), Picture #2 Shown (2), Picture #3 Shown (3), Transition Between Picture Presentation (5), End of Encoding Sequence/Start of Maintenance Period (6), Probe Stimulus Onset (7), Subject Response (8), & End of Experiment (60). The following TTL values were used for screening sessions (Table 3): Start of Experiment (61), Picture Presentation (1), End Presentation (3), Subject Response (4), & End of Experiment (60).
NWB File content: intervals group
The \intervals group specifies the trials in the session. Data is contained as a column-based table in the subgroup \intervals\trials. There is one row for every trial. The ‘id’ column references each trial.
The number of pictures for encoding in each trial is referred to as “load” and is specified in the column “loads” (1–3). The columns loadsEnc1_PicIDs, loadsEnc2_PicIDs, and loadsEnc3_PicIDs specify the identity of the images shown in the encoding stage of each trial. This value can range from 1–5 and is an index into the set of images shown to the subject (see NWB File Content: Stimulus Group). If an encoding period did not occur during the trial, the value for that load was set to 0 (i.e., for a trial of load 2, the value in loadsEnc3_PicIDs for that row is = 0). The column ‘loadsProbe_PicIDs’ indicates the identity of the image shown during the probe stage of a trial. The column ‘probe_in_out’ provides the ground truth for the correct answer (1 = in, 0 = out). The ‘response_accuracy’ column denotes whether the answer given by the subject was correct or not (1 = correct, 0 = incorrect).
For each trial, timestamps are provided that can be used for later analysis. All timestamps are in seconds relative to an arbitrary starting point. These values are derived from the raw event TTLs (see NWB File Content: Acquisition). The ‘timestamps_FixationCross’ column contains the times of the fixation cross (baseline) onsets. The columns’ timestamps_Encoding(1–3)’ and ‘timestamps_Encoding(1–3)_end’ indicate the start and end times of the encoding periods. If an encoding period did not occur during a given trial, the value for that timestamp was set to 0. The ‘timestamps_Maintenance’ column indicates the time of the maintenance period onset. The ‘timestamps_Probe’ column contains the times of the probe image onset. The ‘timestamps_Response’ column contains the times at which the subject pressed a button on the response pad following probe onset. To conform to NWB: N’s TimeIntervals neurodata type, the required columns ‘start_time’ and ‘stop_time’ have been added and contain each trial’s start/stop times. These values are identical to those specified in ‘timestamps_FixationCross’ and ‘timestamps_Response,’ respectively.
NWB File content: stimulus group
The \stimulus group contains the images presented to the subjects and the order and time of image presentation. All images shown in the session are saved as a collection of images in the stimulus\templates\StimulusTemplates subgroup. The subgroup stimulus\presentation\StimulusPresentation contains a series of indexes to the StimulusTemplates subgroup in the order in which the images were presented in the session. Each index has an accompanying timestamp that indicates the onset time when this image was presented. In the Sternberg task, to maintain a number of 4 images referenced per trial, a null image (ID = 5, indexed from 0–5) is referenced when an encoding stage did not occur in a given trial due to the load being 1 or 2. The timestamps associated with each null image are saved as an offset of 10 ms from the previous timestamp to maintain a strictly increasing set of timestamps. In the screening task, a null image was not included in ‘StimulusTemplates’ or referenced in ‘StimulusPresentation.’
NWB File content: units group
The \units group contains all the neuronal data (sorted single neurons). The data in \units is stored in a column-based Dynamic table, with a row for each neuron. The ‘id’ column denotes the cell number. The ‘electrodes’ column indicates the recording electrode to which the cell belongs and contains indexes for the electrode ID, contained in general\extracellular_ephys\electrodes (see NWB File Content: General Group). The ‘spike_times_index’ column contains indexes to ‘spike_times,’ a region-based jagged array much larger than the number of rows in the units table, as it is a concatenation of all spike times across all cells. Spike times are specified in units of seconds relative to an arbitrary starting value that is the same across all timestamps in each file. Each entry of ‘spike_times_index’ indexes the last spike of each neuron. Using this referencing scheme, the range of spikes for each neuron can be determined by using the value in ‘spike_times_index’ as the ending value and + 1 the value in ‘spike_times_index’ as the starting index to the subsequent range of spikes.
Additionally, raw waveforms for each spike are provided to facilitate spike waveform feature analysis48,49. They are stored in the region-based jagged array ‘waveforms,’ like ‘spike_times’ and ‘spike_times_index,’ but are doubly indexed per NWB standards. For example, the ‘waveforms_index_index’ variable denotes the number of SU waveform indices and waveforms that were detected across a singular electrode. In this case, SUs were solely recorded from one electrode each, so the ‘waveforms_index_index’ vector equals the range from 1 to the number of SUs in the session.
Furthermore, metrics related to the quality of these clusters’ waveforms are provided, such as the waveform mean, waveform standard deviation, isolation distance, the mean projection distance, the mean signal-to-noise ratio, and the signal-to-noise ratio at the mean waveform’s peak. These have been stored as ‘waveform_mean,’ ‘waveform_sd’ ‘waveforms_isolation_distance’, ‘waveforms_mean_proj_dist’, ‘waveforms_mean_snr’, and ‘waveforms_peak_snr’ respectively.
Technical Validation
Each subject performed two different tasks: the screening task, followed by the working memory task. The data for these two tasks is processed separately and is provided as separate files (see Table 1). One patient (ID 19) did not perform the screening task and only the Sternberg task is provided for this subject.
Behavior
During the working memory task (Fig. 1b), subjects answered on average 88.73% of trials correctly (Fig. 1d). Accuracy and reaction time varied as a function of load as expected (Fig. 1c), with higher loads resulting in slower and less accurate answers (F2,40 = 7.92, P = 0.0013, repeated-measures ANOVA of median reaction times). We note that there was no order recall component at the end of the trial, which is unlike the original Sternberg task26. Therefore, in load 3 trials, correctly performing the task required only remembering the identity but not the order of the stimuli shown during encoding. It remains an open question whether the behaviour and/or neural results shown here would differ if the order were required to be remembered27,50.
Data recorded and spike sorting quality metrics
In the screening task, we recorded 907 neurons (Fig. 3a). Of these, 449 were recorded in the MTL. In the Sternberg task, we recorded a total of 902 neurons (190 hippocampus, 259 Amygdala, 171 dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, 250 pre-supplementary motor area, 32 ventromedial prefrontal cortex) (Fig. 3b). We note that in our prior work, we have not analysed vmPFC neurons but these are provided here for completeness. We note that the two tasks were sorted separately, which is why the numbers of isolated neurons vary slightly. However, based on similarity of selectivity, we typically assume that many of these cells are identical across the two sessions (screening was typically recorded in the morning, followed by Sternberg in the afternoon a few hours later).
We evaluated the quality of the recording and spike sorting using a series of spike sorting quality metrics (see Methods). On average across all neurons in the Sternberg task, (i) refractory period violations were 0.41% ± 0.50% of interspike intervals (ISIs) (Fig. 3d), (ii) average firing rate was 2.55 Hz, with a range of 0.11–33.82 Hz (Fig. 3e), (iii) the pairwise projection distance in clustering space between neurons isolated on the same wire was 13.77 ± 7.32 (projection test; in units of s.d. of the signal)51 (Fig. 3g) (iv) the ratio between the s.d. of noise and the peak mean waveform amplitude was 6.62 ± 3.63 (Fig. 3g,h), (v) the modified coefficient of variation of the ISIs (CV252) was 0.94 ± 0.14 (Fig. 3f), and (vi) median isolation distance53 was 31.14 (Fig. 3j). The isolation distance was calculated in a ten-dimensional feature space (energy, peak amplitude, total area under the waveform, and the first five principal components of the energy normalized waveforms53).
Proportion of selective cells
In this section, we report the proportion of selected concept, maintenance, and probe cells to validate that the exported data reproduces earlier published results15,20. All results reported here are directly computed based on the data contained in the provided NWB files. We note that more data is included here, making the results different from those previously published.
Screening task: Of the MTL cells, 138 (32.78%) qualified as concept cells (Fig. 4 shows examples). In contrast, only 26 (5.35%) of cells in the MFC were concept cells, reproducing our earlier finding that concept cells are largely only found in the MTL.
Working memory task: In the MTL, 94 (20.94%) neurons qualified as concept cells during the encoding period (Fig. 5 shows examples). As a group, concept cells continued to fire during the maintenance period if their preferred stimulus was held in WM (4.76 ± 4.71 Hz vs. 2.67 ± 3.66 Hz; p = 1.38 × 10−21 for pref. vs. non-pref. trials, paired one-sided t-test). In the MFC, 144 (31.79%) cells qualified as maintenance cells and 122 (26.93%) as probe cells. These numbers are comparable to those reported in our earlier studies15,20.
Usage Notes
Timestamps
All timestamps provided in this dataset are in units of seconds relative to the start of the experiment.
Patient health information
Some data has been omitted or modified to protect patient health information (PHI) as required. For example, ‘session_start_time’ is set to the year the session occurred, with the month/day set to January 1st for all subjects.
Description of code provided
We provide example code in Matlab to illustrate how to use the data. This code reproduces the figures in this paper and replicates prior results regarding the proportion of selective neurons and spike sorting quality metrics.
Compatibility of data & code provided
We used MatNWB version 2.6.0.2 for the export and sample import. File validation was performed through Python using the following packages: dandi version 0.55.1, nwbinspector version 0.4.28, & PyNWB version 2.3.1. We tested our analysis code with MATLAB releases 2019, 2022 & 2023 on windows.
Code availability
All code associated with this project is available as open source. The code is available on GitHub (https://github.com/rutishauserlab/workingmem-release-NWB). MATLAB scripts are included in this repository to reproduce all figures shown and to illustrate how to use the data.
References
Baddeley, A. Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies. Annual Review of Psychology 63, 1–29 (2011).
Goldman-Rakic, P. S. Cellular basis of working memory. Neuron 14, 477–485 (1995).
Eriksson, J., Vogel, E. K., Lansner, A., Bergström, F. & Nyberg, L. Neurocognitive Architecture of Working Memory. Neuron 88, 33–46 (2015).
Kamiński, J. & Rutishauser, U. Between persistently active and activity-silent frameworks: novel vistas on the cellular basis of working memory. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1464, 64–75 (2020).
Chafee, M. V. & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. Matching patterns of activity in primate prefrontal area 8a and parietal area 7ip neurons during a spatial working memory task. J Neurophysiol 79, 2919–2940 (1998).
Chelazzi, L., Duncan, J., Miller, E. K. & Desimone, R. Responses of neurons in inferior temporal cortex during memory-guided visual search. J Neurophysiol 80, 2918–2940 (1998).
Funahashi, S., Bruce, C. J. & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. Mnemonic coding of visual space in the monkey’s dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. J Neurophysiol 61, 331–349 (1989).
Isomura, Y., Ito, Y., Akazawa, T., Nambu, A. & Takada, M. Neural coding of “attention for action” and “response selection” in primate anterior cingulate cortex. J Neurosci 23, 8002–8012 (2003).
Rainer, G., Asaad, W. F. & Miller, E. K. Selective representation of relevant information by neurons in the primate prefrontal cortex. Nature 393, 577–579 (1998).
Romo, R., Brody, C. D., Hernández, A. & Lemus, L. Neuronal correlates of parametric working memory in the prefrontal cortex. Nature 399, 470–473 (1999).
Watanabe, K. & Funahashi, S. Prefrontal delay-period activity reflects the decision process of a saccade direction during a free-choice ODR task. Cereb Cortex 17(Suppl 1), i88–100 (2007).
Watanabe, K. & Funahashi, S. Neural mechanisms of dual-task interference and cognitive capacity limitation in the prefrontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 17, 601–611 (2014).
Squire, L. R. Memory and the hippocampus: a synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychol Rev 99, 195–231 (1992).
Tsutsui, K. I., Oyama, K., Nakamura, S. & Iijima, T. Comparative Overview of Visuospatial Working Memory in Monkeys and Rats. Front Syst Neurosci 10, 99 (2016).
Kamiński, J. et al. Persistently active neurons in human medial frontal and medial temporal lobe support working memory. Nature Neuroscience 20, 590–601 (2017).
Kornblith, S., Quian Quiroga, R., Koch, C., Fried, I. & Mormann, F. Persistent Single-Neuron Activity during Working Memory in the Human Medial Temporal Lobe. Curr Biol 27, 1026–1032 (2017).
Zamora, L., Corina, D. & Ojemann, G. Human temporal cortical single neuron activity during working memory maintenance. Neuropsychologia 86, 1–12 (2016).
Daume, J. et al. Control of working memory maintenance by theta-gamma phase amplitude coupling of human hippocampal neurons. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.05.535772v3 (2023).
Donoghue, T. et al. Single neurons in the human medial temporal lobe flexibly shift representations across spatial and memory tasks. Hippocampus 33, 600–615 (2023).
Kamiński, J., Brzezicka, A., Mamelak, A. N. & Rutishauser, U. Combined Phase-Rate Coding by Persistently Active Neurons as a Mechanism for Maintaining Multiple Items in Working Memory in Humans. Neuron 106, 256–264.e253 (2020).
Rutishauser, U., Reddy, L., Mormann, F. & Sarnthein, J. The Architecture of Human Memory: Insights from Human Single-Neuron Recordings. J Neurosci 41, 883–890 (2021).
Minxha, J., Adolphs, R., Fusi, S., Mamelak, A. N. & Rutishauser, U. Flexible recruitment of memory-based choice representations by the human medial frontal cortex. Science 368 (2020).
Fu, Z. et al. The geometry of domain-general performance monitoring in the human medial frontal cortex. Science 376, eabm9922 (2022).
Rübel, O. et al. The Neurodata Without Borders ecosystem for neurophysiological data science. Elife 11 (2022).
Subash, P. et al. A comparison of neuroelectrophysiology databases. Sci Data 10, 719 (2023).
Sternberg, S. High-Speed Scanning in Human Memory. Science 153, 652–654 (1966).
Sternberg, S. In defence of high-speed memory scanning. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 69, 2020–2075 (2016).
Brzezicka, A. et al. Working Memory Load-related Theta Power Decreases in Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Predict Individual Differences in Performance. J Cogn Neurosci 31, 1290–1307 (2019).
Forsberg, A., Guitard, D., Adams, E. J., Pattanakul, D. & Cowan, N. Working Memory Constrains Long-Term Memory in Children and Adults: Memory of Objects and Bindings. J Intell 11 (2023).
Stokes, M. G. et al. Dynamic coding for cognitive control in prefrontal cortex. Neuron 78, 364–375 (2013).
Churchland, M. M. et al. Neural population dynamics during reaching. Nature 487, 51–56 (2012).
Meyers, E. M., Freedman, D. J., Kreiman, G., Miller, E. K. & Poggio, T. Dynamic population coding of category information in inferior temporal and prefrontal cortex. J Neurophysiol 100, 1407–1419 (2008).
Minxha, J., Mamelak, A. N. & Rutishauser, U. in Extracellular Recording Approaches (ed Sillitoe, R. V.) 267-293 (Springer New York, 2018).
Fried, I. et al. Cerebral microdialysis combined with single-neuron and electroencephalographic recording in neurosurgical patients. Technical note. J Neurosurg 91, 697–705 (1999).
Rutishauser, U., Schuman, E. M. & Mamelak, A. N. Online detection and sorting of extracellularly recorded action potentials in human medial temporal lobe recordings, in vivo. J Neurosci Methods 154, 204–224 (2006).
Fried, I., Rutishauser, U., Cerf, M. & Kreiman, G. Single neuron studies of the human brain: probing cognition. (The MIT Press, 2014).
Ségonne, F. et al. A hybrid approach to the skull stripping problem in MRI. Neuroimage 22, 1060–1075 (2004).
Reuter, M., Rosas, H. D. & Fischl, B. Highly accurate inverse consistent registration: a robust approach. Neuroimage 53, 1181–1196 (2010).
Johnson, H. J., Harris, G. & Williams, K. BRAINSFit: Mutual Information Registrations of Whole-Brain 3D Images, Using the Insight Toolkit. The Insight Journal 180 (2007).
Fedorov, A. et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 30, 1323–1341 (2012).
Tyszka, J. M. & Pauli, W. M. In vivo delineation of subdivisions of the human amygdaloid complex in a high-resolution group template. Hum Brain Mapp 37, 3979–3998 (2016).
Avants, B. et al. Multivariate analysis of structural and diffusion imaging in traumatic brain injury. Acad Radiol 15, 1360–1375 (2008).
Brainard, D. H. The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis 10, 433–436 (1997).
Quiroga, R. Q., Reddy, L., Kreiman, G., Koch, C. & Fried, I. Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain. Nature 435, 1102–1107 (2005).
Quian Quiroga, R., Kraskov, A., Koch, C. & Fried, I. Explicit encoding of multimodal percepts by single neurons in the human brain. Curr Biol 19, 1308–1313 (2009).
Kyzar, M. et al. Dataset of human-single neuron activity during a Sternberg working memory task. DANDI Archive https://doi.org/10.48324/dandi.000469/0.231213.2047 (2023).
Rübel, O. et al. NWB:N 2.0: An Accessible Data Standard for Neurophysiology. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/523035v1 (2019).
Mosher, C. P. et al. Cellular Classes in the Human Brain Revealed In Vivo by Heartbeat-Related Modulation of the Extracellular Action Potential Waveform. Cell Rep 30, 3536–3551.e3536 (2020).
Sun, S. H. et al. Analysis of extracellular spike waveforms and associated receptive fields of neurons in cat primary visual cortex. The Journal of Physiology 599, 2211–2238 (2021).
Corbin, L. & Marquer, J. Effect of a simple experimental control: The recall constraint in Sternberg’s memory scanning task. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 20, 913–935 (2008).
Pouzat, C., Mazor, O. & Laurent, G. Using noise signature to optimize spike-sorting and to assess neuronal classification quality. J Neurosci Methods 122, 43–57 (2002).
Holt, G. R., Softky, W. R., Koch, C. & Douglas, R. J. Comparison of discharge variability in vitro and in vivo in cat visual cortex neurons. J Neurophysiol 75, 1806–1814 (1996).
Harris, K. D., Henze, D. A., Csicsvari, J., Hirase, H. & Buzsáki, G. Accuracy of tetrode spike separation as determined by simultaneous intracellular and extracellular measurements. J Neurophysiol 84, 401–414 (2000).
Acknowledgements
We thank the staff of the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center for their assistance and all patients for their participation. We thank Ryan Ly and Ben Dichter for assistance with NWB use, Shannon Sullivan for spike sorting and data processing, and Ian Ross for patient care. This work was supported by the National Institute of Health through U01NS117839, U01NS098961, and R01MH110831 (to U.R.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Author contributions are as follows: performed experiments (J.K., A.B., U.R.), data processing & analysis (M.K.), development of code & analytical tools (M.K.), performed surgery (A.M.), patient care and seizure localization (C.R., J.C), experimental design (J.K., U.R.), conception and initiation of the project (U.R.), writing of paper (M.K., U.R.).
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kyzar, M., Kamiński, J., Brzezicka, A. et al. Dataset of human-single neuron activity during a Sternberg working memory task. Sci Data 11, 89 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-02943-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-02943-8
- Springer Nature Limited