A non-invasive, quantitative study of broadband spectral responses in human visual cortex

Kupers, Eline R; Wang, Helena X.; Amano, Kaoru; Kay, Kendrick; Heeger, David J.; Winawer, Jonathan

doi:10.1101/108993

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This would have a greater effect on phase-locked SSVEP responses – which depend upon synchronised firing – than on fMRI BOLD responses, which are a proxy for overall neural activity. Instead, asynchronous activity in higher frequency bands (50 – 200 Hz) shows a closer correspondence with the BOLD response ( Hermes et al., 2017 ), and these signals can be detected with extracranial techniques such as MEG ( Kupers et al., 2018 ). In terms of the differences in suppression, this could reflect processing in different layers of cortex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural markers of suppression in impaired binocular vision

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even after conventional patching treatment, individuals with a history of amblyopia typically lack good stereo vision. This is often attributed to atypical suppression between the eyes, yet the specific mechanism is still unclear. Guided by computational models of binocular vision, we tested explicit predictions about how neural responses to contrast might differ in individuals with impaired binocular vision. Participants with a history of amblyopia ( N = 25), and control participants with typical visual development ( N = 19) took part in the study. Neural responses to different combinations of contrast in the left and right eyes, were measured using both electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Stimuli were sinusoidal gratings with a spatial frequency of 3c/deg, flickering at 4 Hz. In the fMRI experiment, we also ran population receptive field and retinotopic mapping sequences, and a phase-encoded localiser stimulus, to identify voxels in primary visual cortex (V1) sensitive to the main stimulus. Neural responses in both modalities increased monotonically with stimulus contrast. When measured with EEG, responses were attenuated in the weaker eye, consistent with a fixed tonic suppression of that eye. When measured with fMRI, a low contrast stimulus in the weaker eye substantially reduced the response to a high contrast stimulus in the stronger eye. This effect was stronger than when the stimulus-eye pairings were reversed, consistent with unbalanced dynamic suppression between the eyes. Measuring neural responses using different methods leads to different conclusions about visual differences in individuals with impaired binocular vision. Both of the atypical suppression effects may relate to binocular perceptual deficits, e.g. in stereopsis, and we anticipate that these measures could be informative for monitoring the progress of treatments aimed at recovering binocular vision.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural markers of suppression in impaired binocular vision

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would have a greater effect on phase-locked SSVEP responses – which depend upon synchronised firing – than on fMRI BOLD responses, which are a proxy for overall neural activity. Instead, asynchronous activity in higher frequency bands (50 – 200Hz) shows a closer correspondence with the BOLD response 38 , and these signals can be detected with extracranial techniques such as MEG 39 . In terms of the differences in suppression, this could reflect processing in different layers of cortex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural markers of suppression in impaired binocular vision

Lygo

Richard

Wade

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective/Purpose: Even after conventional patching treatment, individuals with a history of amblyopia typically lack good stereo vision. This is often attributed to atypical suppression between the eyes, yet the specific mechanism is still unclear. Guided by computational models of binocular vision, we tested explicit predictions about how neural responses to contrast might differ in individuals with impaired binocular vision. Design: A 5 ✕ 5 factorial repeated measures design was used, in which all participants completed a set of 25 conditions (stimuli of different contrasts shown to the left and right eyes). Participants: 25 individuals with a history of amblyopia, and 19 control participants with typical visual development, participated in the study. Methods: Neural responses to different combinations of contrast in the left and right eyes, were measured using both electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Stimuli were sinusoidal gratings with a spatial frequency of 3c/deg, flickering at 4Hz. In the fMRI experiment, we also ran population receptive field and retinotopic mapping sequences, and a phase-encoded localiser stimulus, to identify voxels in primary visual cortex (V1) sensitive to the main stimulus. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were the signal-to-noise ratio of the steady state visual evoked potential, and the fMRI β weights from a general linear model. Results: Neural responses generally increased monotonically with stimulus contrast. When measured with EEG, responses were attenuated in the weaker eye, consistent with a fixed tonic suppression of that eye. When measured with fMRI, a low contrast stimulus in the weaker eye substantially reduced the response to a high contrast stimulus in the stronger eye. This effect was stronger than when the stimulus-eye pairings were reversed, consistent with unbalanced dynamic suppression between the eyes. Conclusions: Measuring neural responses using different methods leads to different conclusions about visual differences in individuals with impaired binocular vision. Both of the atypical suppression effects may relate to binocular perceptual deficits, e.g. in stereopsis, and we anticipate that these measures could be informative for monitoring the progress of treatments aimed at recovering binocular vision.

show abstract

“…2009 ; Privman et al. 2013 ; Coon and Schalk 2016 ; Kupers et al. 2017 ) and thus ideally suited to test neuronal silencing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind-wandering Is Accompanied by Both Local Sleep and Enhanced Processes of Spatial Attention Allocation

Wienke

Bartsch

Vogelgesang

et al. 2021

Cerebral Cortex Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mind wandering (MW) is a subjective, cognitive phenomenon, in which thoughts move away from the task towards an internal train of thoughts, possibly during phases of neuronal sleep-like activity (local sleep, LS). MW decreases cortical processing of external stimuli and is assumed to decouple attention from the external world. Here, we directly tested how indicators of LS, cortical processing and attentional selection change in a pop-out visual search task during phases of MW. Participants brain activity was recorded using magnetoencephalography, MW was assessed via self-report using randomly interspersed probes. As expected, the performance decreased under MW. Consistent with the occurrence of LS, MW was accompanied by a decrease in high frequency activity (HFA, 80-150 Hz) and an increase in slow wave activity (SWA, 1-6 Hz). In contrast, visual attentional selection as indexed by the N2pc component was enhanced during MW with the N2pc amplitude being directly linked to participants’ performance. This observation clearly contradicts accounts of attentional decoupling that would predict a decrease in attention-related responses to external stimuli during MW. Together, our results suggest that MW occurs during phases of LS with processes of attentional target selection being upregulated, potentially to compensate for the mental distraction during MW.

show abstract

A non-invasive, quantitative study of broadband spectral responses in human visual cortex

Cited by 5 publications

References 67 publications

Neural markers of suppression in impaired binocular vision

Neural markers of suppression in impaired binocular vision

Neural markers of suppression in impaired binocular vision

Mind-wandering Is Accompanied by Both Local Sleep and Enhanced Processes of Spatial Attention Allocation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About