Fig. 8: The multiscale predictive mode had a larger decay than other modes and both its decay and frequency explained naturalistic behavior prediction.
a Multiscale predictive modes in Fig. 5 had significantly larger decays than other complex-conjugate modes in spiking and LFP activity (P = 9.1 × 10−11, Ns > 22 spiking and LFP sessions, one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test). Figure convention for boxplot and significance (asterisks) is similar to Figs. 3 and 4. Each grey dot shows the decay of one principal mode across subjects and experimental sessions. b Multivariate linear regression (MVLR) relating the principal mode’s prediction accuracy to its decay and frequency deviation. The deviations were computed as the mode’s decay and frequency absolute difference from those of the multiscale predictive mode (Methods). Both decay and frequency had significantly negative coefficient with p values reported by Pd and Pf, respectively (Ns = 66 complex-conjugate principal modes, two-sided paired t test). R2 shows the R-squared of the fitted MVLR model. Each green dot represents one complex-conjugate principal mode across subjects and experimental sessions. The black line shows the MVLR fitted line. c Perturbing decay (left) and frequency (right) of the multiscale predictive modes in the learned state-space model shows that both decay and frequency components explained naturalistic behavior prediction accuracy. Each dot represents the mean prediction accuracy of one perturbed mode across experimental sessions and monkeys; error bars represent 95% confidence bounds of the mean. The x axis is shown in log scale and represents the value of perturbed decay and frequency. Asterisks show whether the prediction of the perturbed mode is significantly different from that of the unperturbed multiscale predictive mode represented by a vertical dashed line, with conventions similar to Fig. 3 (n.s. is non-significant P > 0.05). Decays ~1−2 s had the best prediction accuracy (picked as the interval that had non-significant difference with the unperturbed mode, P = 4.1 × 10−2, Ns = 55 cross-validation folds, one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test, FDR-corrected). Also, mode frequencies ~0.17−0.3 Hz had the best prediction accuracy (picked as the interval that had non-significant difference compared with the unperturbed mode, P = 8.2 × 10−5, Ns = 55 cross-validation folds, one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test, FDR-corrected). Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
