fixed result first subsection

susceptibility1.tex

@@ -546,17 +546,19 @@ Field observations have shown that courting males were able to react to distant
 
 \section*{Results}
 
+Theoretical work on leaky integrate-and-fire and conductance-based models suggests a distinct structure of the second-order response function for neurons with low levels of intrinsic noise driven in the super-threshold regime with low stimulus amplitudes (\figrefb{fig:lifresponse}, \citealp{Voronenko2017}). Here, we re-analyze a large set of recordings of P-units and ampullary cells of the active and passive electrosensory systems of the brown ghost knifefish \textit{Apteronotus leptorhynchus} together with simulations of LIF-based models of P-unit spiking in order to search for such weakly nonlinear responses in real neurons. We start out with a few example P-units to demonstrate the basic concepts.
 
-In social contexts, the superposition of the EODs of two interacting animals result in a characteristic periodic amplitude modulation, the so-called beat. The beat amplitude is defined by the smaller EOD amplitude, its frequency is defined as the difference between the two EOD frequencies ($\Delta f = f-\feod{}$, valid for $f < \feod{}/2$)\cite{Barayeu2023}.
- We start with exploring the influence of intrinsic noise on nonlinear encoding in P-units.
 
-Recent theoretical and modelling work on leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) model neurons revealed specific pattern of nonlinear interactions when driven with weak sinewaves\cite{Voronenko2017}. This situation is reminiscent of the real fish's situation in which three electric fish interact. The active electrosensory system is then exposed to the two AMs arising from the interactions with either foreign fish's field. Previous recordings in the natural habitat showed interactions of three animals in which two animals interacted closely (strong signals) and were interrupted by an intruding animal (weak signal). The intruder was detected at spatial distances that led to an extremely faint intruder signal while the strong signal of the other animal is present\cite{Henninger2018}. When the receiver fish with EOD frequency \feod{} is alone, the P-unit fire action potentials as a baseline response $r_{0}$ at a spontaneous baseline rate \fbase{}. Accordingly, a peak at \fbase{} is present in the power spectrum of the neuronal response (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{A}, bottom). Phase-locking to the own field also leads to a representation of \feod{} in the P-unit firing rate (see \figref{fig:cells_suscept}\panel{B})\cite{Sinz2020}. The beat frequency when two fish interact is also represented in the respective responses and accordingly, there is a peak in power spectrum at $\Delta f_1$ or $\Delta f_2$ (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{B, C}, respectively). When three fish encounter, all their waveforms interfere with both beat frequencies being present in the superimposed signal (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{D}, second row). The power spectrum of the neuronal activity contains both previously seen beat peaks, but also nonlinear interaction peaks at the sum frequency \bsum{} and the difference frequency \bdiff{} (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{D}, bottom), thus the response of the system is not equal to the input (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{D}, top). The appearing difference peak is known as the social envelope\cite{Stamper2012Envelope, Savard2011}. The neuron shown here, clearly encodes the envelope. Whether P-units in general encode envelopes has been subject of controversy, some works do not consider P-units as envelope encoders\cite{Middleton2006}, while others identify some P-units as envelope encoders\cite{Savard2011}. 
+\subsection*{Nonlinear responses in P-units stimulated with two beat frequencies}
 
-The P-unit responses can be partially explained by simple linear filters. The linear relation of the cellular response and the stimulus can be captured by the first-order susceptibility (or transfer function). As in Volterra series, higher-order terms describe the nonlinear interactions. We quantify the nonlinearity of P-unit encoding by estimating the second-order susceptibility from white-noise responses\cite{Nikias1993,Neiman2011fish, Voronenko2017,Egerland2020}. We address whether the theory still holds for neurons that do not encode the foreign signals directly but respond to the AM of a carrier. For this study we re-use a large set of recordings of afferents of both the active (P-units) and the passive electrosensory (ampullary cells) to work out which cellular features enhance nonlinear encoding.
+Without any external stimulation, a P-unit fires action potentials at a spontaneous baseline rate \fbase{} to the fish's own EOD of frequency \feod{}. Accordingly, a peak at \fbase{} is present in the power spectrum of this baseline activity (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{A}). Superposition of the receiver's EOD with an EOD of another fish with frequency $f_1$ results in a beat, a periodic amplitude modulation of the receiver's EOD. The frequency of the beat is given by the difference frequency $\Delta f_1 = f_1 - \feod$ between the two fish. P-units encode this beat in their firing rate \cite{Bastian1981a,Barayeu2023} and consequently a peak at this beat frequency appears the the power spectrum of the response (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{B}). A second peak at the first harmonic indicates a nonlinear response that here is easily identified by the clipping of the P-unit's firing rate at zero. Pairing the fish with another fish with a higher beat frequency $\Delta f_2 = f_2 - \feod$ results in a weaker response with a single peak in the response power spectrum (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{C}). Note that $\Delta f_2$ has been choosen to match the P-unit's baseline  firing rate.
 
+When stimulating the fish with both frequencies, additional peaks appear in the response power spectrum at the sum \bsum{} and the difference frequency \bdiff{} (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{D}). Thus, the response is not equal to sum of the responses to the two beats presented separately. These peaks at the sum and the difference of the two stimulus frequencies are a hallmark of nonlinear interactions that by definition are absent in linear systems.
+
+For this example we have chosen two specific stimulus (beat) frequencies. However, for a full characterization of nonlinear repsonses we would need to measure the response of the P-units to many different combinations of stimulus frequencies. In addition, the beat stimuli in the example were strong and partially revealed saturating nonlinearities of the P-units. For weakly nonlinear responses we need to use stimuli of much lower amplitudes.
 
 \subsection*{Nonlinear signal transmission in low-CV P-units}
-Nonlinear encoding as quantified by the second-order susceptibility is expected to be especially pronounced in cells with weak intrinsic noise, i.e. low baseline CVs \cite{Voronenko2017}. P-units fire action potentials probabilistically phase-locked to the self-generated EOD \cite{Bastian1981a}. Skipping of EOD cycles leads to the characteristic multimodal ISI distribution with maxima at integer multiples of the EOD period (\subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{A}). In this example the baseline ISI distribution has a CV$_{\text{base}}$ of 0.2, which is at the lower end of the P-unit population \cite{Hladnik2023}. Spectral analysis of the baseline activity shows two major peaks: the first is located at the baseline firing rate \fbase, the second is located at the discharge frequency \feod{} of the electric organ and is flanked by two smaller peaks at $\feod \pm \fbase{}$ (\subfigref{fig:cells_suscept}{B}).
+Weakly nonlinear responses are expected in cells with sufficiently low intrinsic noise levels, i.e. low baseline CVs \cite{Voronenko2017}. P-units fire action potentials probabilistically phase-locked to the self-generated EOD \cite{Bastian1981a}. Skipping of EOD cycles leads to the characteristic multimodal ISI distribution with maxima at integer multiples of the EOD period (\subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{A}). In this example the baseline ISI distribution has a CV$_{\text{base}}$ of 0.2, which is at the lower end of the P-unit population \cite{Hladnik2023}. Spectral analysis of the baseline activity shows two major peaks: the first is located at the baseline firing rate \fbase, the second is located at the discharge frequency \feod{} of the electric organ and is flanked by two smaller peaks at $\feod \pm \fbase{}$ (\subfigref{fig:cells_suscept}{B}).
 
 
 \begin{figure*}[tp]
@@ -566,11 +568,7 @@ Nonlinear encoding as quantified by the second-order susceptibility is expected
 
 Noise stimuli, here random amplitude modulations (RAM) of the EOD (\subfigref{fig:cells_suscept}{C}, top trace, red line), are commonly used to characterize stimulus driven responses of sensory neurons by means of transfer functions (first-order susceptibility), spike-triggered averages, or stimulus-response coherences. Here, we additionally estimate the second-order susceptibility to quantify nonlinear encoding. P-unit spikes align more or less clearly to fluctuations in the RAM stimulus. A higher stimulus intensity, here a higher contrast of the RAM relative to the EOD amplitude (see methods), entrains the P-unit response more clearly (light and dark purple for low and high contrast stimuli, \subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{C}). Linear encoding, quantified by the transfer function \Eqnref{linearencoding_methods}, is similar for the two RAM contrasts in this low-CV P-unit (\subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{D}), as expected for a linear system. The first-order susceptibility is low for low frequencies, peaks in the range below 100\,Hz and then falls off again \notejb{Cite Moe paper?}.
 
-The second-order susceptibility, \Eqnref{eq:susceptibility},  quantifies amplitude and phase of the stimulus-evoked response at the sum \fsum{} for each combination of two stimulus frequencies \fone{} and \ftwo{}. Large values of the second-order susceptibility indicate stimulus-evoked peaks in the response spectrum at the summed frequency that cannot be explained by linear response theory. Similar to the first-order susceptibility, the second-order susceptibility can be estimated directly from the response evoked by a RAM stimulus that simulates the neuron with a whole range of frequencies simultaneously (\subfigsref{fig:cells_suscept}{E, F}). For a LIF driven in the super-threshold regime with two sinewave stimuli, theory predicts nonlinear interactions between the two stimulus frequencies, when the two frequencies \fone{} and \ftwo{} or their sum \fsum{} excatly match the neuron's baseline firing rate \fbase{} \cite{Voronenko2017}. Only then, additional stimulus-evoked peaks appear in the spectrum of the spiking response that would show up in the second-order susceptibility as a horizontal, a vertical, and an anti-diagonal line (pink triangle in \subfigsref{fig:cells_suscept}{E, F}).
+The second-order susceptibility, \Eqnref{eq:susceptibility},  quantifies amplitude and phase of the stimulus-evoked response at the sum \fsum{} for each combination of two stimulus frequencies \fone{} and \ftwo{}. Large values of the second-order susceptibility indicate stimulus-evoked peaks in the response spectrum at the summed frequency that cannot be explained by linear response theory. Similar to the first-order susceptibility, the second-order susceptibility can be estimated directly from the response evoked by a RAM stimulus that simulates the neuron with a whole range of frequencies simultaneously (\subfigsref{fig:cells_suscept}{E, F}). For a LIF driven in the super-threshold regime, theory predicts nonlinear interactions between the two stimulus frequencies, when the two frequencies \fone{} and \ftwo{} or their sum \fsum{} excatly match the neuron's baseline firing rate \fbase{} \cite{Voronenko2017}. Only then, additional stimulus-evoked peaks appear in the spectrum of the spiking response that would show up in the second-order susceptibility as a horizontal, a vertical, and an anti-diagonal line (\subfigrefb{fig:lifresponse}{B}, pink triangle in \subfigsref{fig:cells_suscept}{E, F}).
-
-
-% DAS GEHOERT IN DIE DISKUSSION:
-% To estimate the second-order susceptibility from the P-unit responses to RAM stimuli, the noise stimulus was set in relation to the corresponding neuronal response in the Fourier domain, resulting in a matrix in which the nonlinearity at the sum frequency \fsum{} in the firing rate is depicted for two noise frequencies \fone{} and \ftwo{} (\Eqnref{eq:susceptibility}, \subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{E--F}). The decomposition of the RAM stimulus into the frequency components allows us to approximate the beat frequencies $\Delta f$, occurring in case of pure sine-wave stimulation (\subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{D}). Thus, the nonlinearity accessed with the RAM stimulation at \fsum{} (\subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{E}) is similar to the nonlinearity appearing during pure sine-wave stimulation at \bsum{} (orange peak, \subfigrefb{fig:motivation}{D}).
 
 For the low-CV P-unit we observe a band of slightly elevated second-order susceptibility for the low RAM contrast at \fsumb{} (yellowish anti-diagonal between pink edges, \subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{E}). This structure vanishes for the stronger stimulus (\subfigref{fig:cells_suscept}{F}). Further, the overall level of the second-order susceptibility is reduced with increasing stimulus strength. To quantify the structural changes in the susceptibility matrices we projected susceptibility values onto the diagonal by taking the mean over all anti-diagonals (\subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{G}). For the low RAM contrast this projected second-order susceptibility indeed has a small peak at \fbase{} (\subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{G}, dot on top line). For the higher RAM contrast, however, this peak vanishes and the overall level of the second-order susceptibility is reduced (\subfigrefb{fig:cells_suscept}{G}). The reason behind this reduction is that a RAM with a higher contrast is not only a stimulus with an increased amplitude, but also increases the total noise in the system. Increased noise is known to linearize signal transmission \cite{Longtin1993, Chialvo1997,  Roddey2000, Voronenko2017} and thus the second-order susceptibility is expected to decrease.
 
@@ -590,7 +588,6 @@ Irrespective of the CV, neither of the two example P-units shows the complete ex
 
 
 \subsection*{Model-based estimation of the nonlinear structure}
-%Traces of the expected structure of second-order susceptibility are found in both ampullary and p-type electrosensory afferents.
 In the example recordings shown above (\figsrefb{fig:cells_suscept} and \fref{fig:ampullary}), we only observe nonlinear responses on the anti-diagnal of the second-order susceptibility, where the sum of the two stimulus frequencies matches the neuron's baseline firing rate, which is in line with theoretical expectations\cite{Voronenko2017}. However, a pronounced nonlinear response at frequencies \foneb{} or \ftwob{}, although predicted by theory,  cannot be observed. Here we investigate how these discrepancies can be understood.
 
 \begin{figure*}[tp]
@@ -648,11 +645,19 @@ The population of ampullary cells is generally more homogeneous, with lower base
 
 \section*{Discussion}
 
+
+\notejb{Leftovers from discussion}
 Nonlinearities are ubiquitous in nervous systems, they are essential to extract certain features such as amplitude modulations of a carrier. Here, we analyzed the nonlinearity in primary electroreceptor afferents of the weakly electric fish \lepto{}. Under natural stimulus conditions, when the electric fields of two or more animals produce interference patterns that contain information of the context of the encounter, such nonlinear encoding is required to enable responding to AMs or also so-called envelopes. The work presented here is inspired by observations of electric fish interactions in the natural habitat. In these observed electrosensory cocktail-parties, a second male is intruding the conversations of a courting dyad. The courting male detects the intruder at a large distance where the foreign electric signal is strongly attenuated due to spatial distance and tiny compared to the signal emitted by the close-by female. Such a three-animal situation is exemplified in \figref{fig:motivation} for a rather specific combination of interfering EODs. There, we observe that the electroreceptor response contains components that result from nonlinear interference (\subfigref{fig:motivation}{D}) that might help to solve this detection task. Based on theoretical work we work out the circumstances under which electroreceptor afferents show such nonlinearities.
 
 
 \notejb{Even though the extraction of the AM itself requires a \notejb{nonlinearity}\cite{Middleton2006,Stamper2012Envelope,Savard2011,Barayeu2023} encoding the time-course of the AM is linear over a wide range of AM amplitudes and frequencies\cite{Xu1996,Benda2005,Gussin2007,Grewe2017,Savard2011}. In the context of social signalling among three fish we observe an AM of the AM, also referred to as second-order envelope or just social envelope\cite{Middleton2006, Savard2011, Stamper2012Envelope}. Encoding this again requires nonlinearities\cite{Middleton2006} and it was shown that a subpopulation of P-units are sensitive to envelopes\cite{Savard2011} and exhibit nonlinearities e.g. when driven by strong stimuli\cite{Nelson1997,Chacron2004}.}
 
+Phase-locking to the own field also leads to a representation of \feod{} in the P-unit firing rate (see \figref{fig:cells_suscept}\panel{B})\cite{Sinz2020}.
+
+
+The appearing difference peak is known as the social envelope\cite{Stamper2012Envelope, Savard2011}. The neuron shown here, clearly encodes the envelope. Whether P-units in general encode envelopes has been subject of controversy, some works do not consider P-units as envelope encoders\cite{Middleton2006}, while others identify some P-units as envelope encoders\cite{Savard2011}. 
+
+
 \notejb{Weakly nonlinear responses versus saturation regime}