Tip excursion features
To characterize the dynamical properties of the proposed stimulating device, a series of experiments were set up. A specific device which consists of a gallium arsenide infrared emitting diode coupled with a silicon phototransistor was used to assess the tip displacement, the displacement duration and the possible displacement delays. By means of this optical interrupter switch we placed the stimulator tip on the edge of the emitting diode hole (height = 1 mm) and both the microcontroller and the phototransistor outputs were recorded. The placing procedure was facilitated by a microstepper device with a maximum resolution of 1 mm.
The response of devices are shown in Figure 2A. The red line represents the phototransistor response followed by the microcontroller response which indicates the exact beginning of the tip displacement. Notably, a systematic delay due to commutations was present and quantified (Figure 2B, mean = 583 μsec in 100 trials) resulting as abundantly below the desired time precision (1 msec). Finally, we measured the tip displacement duration that was of 3.96 msec on average as shown in Figure 2C.
Randomized Paired Pulse Protocol to Capture LFP and Spike Relations
In order to understand the relation between LFP and spikes, we first set out to generate a stimulation device that can evoke fast and reliable responses from both signals. The Figure 3A shows the inter-stimulus-interval distribution, ensuring that the device provoked a modulation of the spiking activity. The device description and functioning is detailed in the Protocol section.
In Figures 3B and 3C the LFP and spike responses for a representative neuron are shown, respectively. By measuring Mutual Information for spikes and SNR for LFPs (Figures 4A and 4B) it was clear that both encode a substantial amount of information about stimulus occurrence.
Interestingly LFPs and spikes also provided information about the stimulation history (Figures 4C-E). In particular LFP responses were substantially reduced when the actual stimulus was preceded by a previous impulse with a small enough inter-stimulus-interval (Figures 4C and 4D). Neuronal coding of stimulation history positively correlated with MI although exhibited substantially lower values (Figure 4E).
We then asked which features of the LFP signal better correlate with the spike response. After a preliminary analysis, three LFP features that strongly correlate with the average spike response were identified: the average LFP, its derivative and the phase of the LFP derivative (Figure 4F).
A Multi-objective Strategy for Spike Prediction Based on LFPs
Spike trains typically have complex temporal structures that exhibit significant correlations on several timescales. So, which aspects of the neuronal response are captured by LFPs?
A good test to probe the comprehension of the LFP-spike relation is to ask how well spikes are predictable just by looking at the LFP signal. Therefore, by using the above set of LFP features (see Figure 4F), the aim was to build a predictive model that, at any time, reads the values of these features and generates a binary prediction about the occurrence of a spike.
A critical problem related to the fitting of a spike prediction model is constituted by the choice of an appropriate objective function. The most common choices are the Pearson coefficient and the coherence function5. Interesting alternatives are provided by spike metrics6. While the first two measures are based on the average neuronal responses and therefore do not capture the full structure of the spike trains, the latter is computationally demanding and not practical for fitting purposes. An alternative solution based on multi-objective optimization is proposed. The idea is to jointly minimize more objectives functions (hereafter just called objectives). These objectives have to be computationally efficient to calculate and able to capture different aspects of the neuronal response.
By using the concept of Pareto optimality we can then find a set of models, each optimized for specific trade-offs between these objectives. In order to estimate the Pareto optimal surfaces the NSGAII algorithm was used12. We identified three objective functions: a global one based on the distance in the average responses, a local one based on the distance on a trial-to-trial basis and an additional objective that penalizes the complexity of the model (see the relative Protocol section).
The results obtained by fitting a representative neuron from our dataset are shown in Figures 5A and 5B. Figure 5A reports the global distance (PF) and the local distance (SM) between model and true responses. Note that the distances for each model are optimal in a Pareto sense so that no model is better or worse than any other one in both distances. The same principle holds for all the three distances jointly considered (Figure 5B).
A main advantage given by the estimation of a set of optimal models instead of a single one lies in the fact that different models, based on optimal trade-offs among the specified objectives, capture different aspects of the true neuronal response. This is shown in Figure 6, where the original raster diagrams (Figures 6A and 6D) and the predicted ones (Figures 6B, 6C, 6E, and 6F) are reported, from two representative neurons: models that minimize the local distance capture the most reliable phase of the neuronal responses (Figures 6B and 6E) while models based on a reasonable trade-off between the local and the global distance better capture the neuron variability and spontaneous firing over the whole temporal range (0-50 msec, Figures 6C and 6F).

Figure 1. (A) Schematic of driver circuit. The main component is an L293D h-bridge. The microcontroller commands are delivered at pins D1 and D2. (B) Blunted tip movements for light mechanical stimulation. The grid size on the graph paper is 1 mm. Click here to view larger image.

Figure 2. Tip displacement features. (A) The outputs of the microcontroller (blue line) and of the phototransistor (red line). The green vertical line is set to 0 indicates the onset of the tip displacement. (B) The probability distribution of the effective tip displacement delays obtained over 100 trials. (C) The probability distribution of the duration of the tip displacement on average in 100 trials. Click here to view larger image.

Figure 3. (A) Inter-Stimulus-Interval distribution. (B, C) "on air" stimuli do not evoke responses (see the top of both graphs in the range 1,000 to 1,200 trials). Compare them to the true stimulus trial run (on the ordinate axes) from 0 to 1,000, where between 15- 40 msec of delay from the stimulus onset (time 0 on the abscissa) clear responses can be observed. The plot in (B) refers to the LFP response whereas the plot in (C) refers to the spike response. In the y-axis of the right most figure, there are the positions ("BIG TOE", "II", "III", etc.) of the stimuli on the hind limb of rats. Click here to view larger image.

Figure 4. (A, B) Mutual Information and LFPSNR as a function of time along different digits. (C) LFP normalized values after short (<100 msec) and long (>300 msec) Inter-Stimulus-Interval (IStimI). (D) Average Power of the LFP responses after long and short IStimI. Each dot represents a distinct recording. (E) MI about long/short IStimI as a function of the largest MI values about stimulus occurrence (Imax). Each dot represents a distinct neuron. (F) The PSTH of a representative neuron well correlates with three features of the LFP response: the average raw signal, the average derivative and the phase of the derivative. Click here to view larger image.

Figure 5. (A, B) Local and Global distance between predicted and true responses for a representative neuron. (B) Joint evaluation for the three distances. Pareto optimal solutions were estimated by using the NSGAII algorithm. Click here to view larger image.

Figure 6. True (A,D) and estimated (B,C and E,F respectively) responses for two representative neurons. x, y, z respectively represent the raw LFP signal, its derivative and the phase of its derivative. Click here to view larger image.