Occipital Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Has Opposing Effects on Visual and Auditory Stimulus Detection: Implications for Multisensory Interactions

Romei, Vincenzo; Murray, Micah M.; Merabet, Lotfi B.; Thut, Gregor

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2827-07.2007

Cited by 165 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The requisite anatomy for such interactions has been well documented (Falchier et al, 2002(Falchier et al, , 2010Rockland and Ojima, 2003;Cappe and Barone, 2005) and may even include a corticothalamocortical loop (Cappe et al, 2007a(Cappe et al, , 2009cHackett et al, 2007). When considered in conjunction with functional studies showing multisensory interactions in low-level cortices and/or at early latencies (Ghazanfar and Schroeder, 2006;Bizley et al, 2007;Cappe et al, 2007b;Martuzzi et al, 2007;Romei et al, 2007Romei et al, , 2009Bizley and King, 2008;Kayser et al, 2008;Wang et al, 2008;Raij et al, 2010), we consider it probable that the present phenomena are supported by direct interconnections that at a functional level are likely a combination of feedforward as well as feedback activity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Auditory–Visual Multisensory Interactions in Humans: Timing, Topography, Directionality, and Sources

Cappe¹,

Thut²,

Romei³

et al. 2010

J. Neurosci.

Self Cite

131

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current models of brain organization include multisensory interactions at early processing stages and within low-level, including primary, cortices. Embracing this model with regard to auditory-visual (AV) interactions in humans remains problematic. Controversy surrounds the application of an additive model to the analysis of event-related potentials (ERPs), and conventional ERP analysis methods have yielded discordant latencies of effects and permitted limited neurophysiologic interpretability. While hemodynamic imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation studies provide general support for the above model, the precise timing, superadditive/subadditive directionality, topographic stability, and sources remain unresolved. We recorded ERPs in humans to attended, but task-irrelevant stimuli that did not require an overt motor response, thereby circumventing paradigmatic caveats. We applied novel ERP signal analysis methods to provide details concerning the likely bases of AV interactions. First, nonlinear interactions occur at 60 -95 ms after stimulus and are the consequence of topographic, rather than pure strength, modulations in the ERP. AV stimuli engage distinct configurations of intracranial generators, rather than simply modulating the amplitude of unisensory responses. Second, source estimations (and statistical analyses thereof) identified primary visual, primary auditory, and posterior superior temporal regions as mediating these effects. Finally, scalar values of current densities in all of these regions exhibited functionally coupled, subadditive nonlinear effects, a pattern increasingly consistent with the mounting evidence in nonhuman primates. In these ways, we demonstrate how neurophysiologic bases of multisensory interactions can be noninvasively identified in humans, allowing for a synthesis across imaging methods on the one hand and species on the other.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Auditory–Visual Multisensory Interactions in Humans: Timing, Topography, Directionality, and Sources

Cappe¹,

Thut²,

Romei³

et al. 2010

J. Neurosci.

Self Cite

131

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As mentioned earlier (see also other chapters in this issue), many human studies conducted with EEG or fMRI have revealed multisensory interactions in low-level cortices such as V1 (see Ghazanfar and Schroeder, 2006 for a review and Martuzzi et al, 2007;Romei et al, 2007Romei et al, , 2008 for recent evidences) and/or at a latency that strongly suggests that such phenomena are supported by the heteromodal connections directly linking areas of different sensory modalities. For example, the visual information derived from the lip movements during speech processing can affect directly the responses recorded in the auditory cortex (Besle et al, 2004).…”

Section: Electrophysiological Evidence In the Primary Sensory Areasmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The notion that multisensory integration is restricted to higherorder areas has recently been challenged by human and animal studies that have revealed that crossmodal interactions can occur in unisensory areas at very low levels of cortical processing (Buchel et al, 1998;Calvert et al, 1999Calvert et al, , 2001Macaluso et al, 2000;Schroeder et al, 2001;Amedi et al, 2002;Ghazanfar et al, 2005;Kriegstein et al, 2005;Miller and D'Esposito, 2005;Watkins et al, 2006;Martuzzi et al, 2007;Kayser et al, 2007Kayser et al, , 2008Romei et al, 2007Romei et al, , 2008Wang et al, 2008) and more importantly at very short latencies (Giard and Peronnet, 1999;Foxe et al, 2000;Molholm et al, 2002;Murray et al, 2005;Senkowski et al, 2007;Sperdin et al, 2009). Such a fast timing of multisensory interactions rule out an origin in the multisensory areas mediated through backward projections, and instead favor direct heteromodal connections.…”

Section: Heteromodal Connections: Connections Between Different Sensomentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory anatomical pathways

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to interact with the multisensory world that surrounds us, we must integrate various sources of sensory information (vision, hearing, touch. . .). A fundamental question is thus how the brain integrates the separate elements of an object defined by several sensory components to form a unified percept. The superior colliculus was the main model for studying multisensory integration. At the cortical level, until recently, multisensory integration appeared to be a characteristic attributed to high-level association regions. First, we describe recently observed direct cortico-cortical connections between different sensory cortical areas in the non-human primate and discuss the potential role of these connections. Then, we show that the projections between different sensory and motor cortical areas and the thalamus enabled us to highlight the existence of thalamic nuclei that, by their connections, may represent an alternative pathway for information transfer between different sensory and/or motor cortical areas. The thalamus is in position to allow a faster transfer and even an integration of information across modalities. Finally, we discuss the role of these non-specific connections regarding behavioral evidence in the monkey and recent electrophysiological evidence in the primary cortical sensory areas.

show abstract

“…Spierer et al 2013;Sutherland et al 2014). For example, visual cortex excitability, driven by a TMS pulse over occipital areas and measured by phosphene perception, can be enhanced by concomitant presentation of sounds as early as 60-75ms before the TMS stimulation onset (Romei et al 2007).…”

Section: Early Msi As a Hallmark Of A Bottom-up Multisensory Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our understanding of how perception operates in real-world environments has been substantially advanced by studying both multisensoryprocesses and "top-down" control processes influencing sensory processing via activity from higher-order brain areas, such as attention, memory, and expectations. As the two topicshave been traditionally studied separately, the mechanisms orchestrating real-world multisensory processingremain unclear.Past work has revealed that the observer's goals gate the influence of many multisensory processes on brain and behavioural responses, whereas some other multisensory processes mightoccur independently of these goals. Consequently, other forms of top-down control beyond goaldependence are necessaryto explain the full range of multisensory effects currently reported at the brain and the cognitive level. These forms of control includesensitivity to stimulus context as well as the detection of matches(or lack thereof) between a multisensory stimulus and categorical attributes of naturalistic objects (e.g. tools, animals). In this review we discuss and integrate the existing findings that demonstrate the importance of such goal-, object-and context-based top-down control over multisensory processing. We then put forward a few principles emerging from this literature review with respect to the mechanisms underlying multisensory processing, and discuss their possible broader implications. Attention, multisensory, control, object, audiovisual, brain mapping 3 Research from the past 30 years has demonstrated a whole range of behavioural benefits engendered by integrating information across the senses (multisensory integration, MSI), including faster motor responses and facilitated object recognition in noisy environments (e.g. Stein 2012). In a separate and independent manner, studies employing unisensory stimuli have been critically advancing our understanding of the nature and the importance of top-down mechanisms that control information processing. Thetopdown nature of these mechanisms lies in that they shape perceptual processing of new inputs by activating information stored in higher-order brain areas (e.g. Summerfield and Egner 2009). Key words:Studies of top-down control have traditionally focused on attentional (i.e. goaldependent)mechanisms, which promote the processing of stimulior objects in the environment that areimportant tothe current behavioural goals of the observer (e.g.Desimone and Duncan 1995). These mechanisms enhance the processing of stimuli appearing in task-relevant spatial locations and/or moments in time. These mechanisms likewise facilitate the processingof those stimuli whose attributes (e.g. colour red), feature dimensions (e.g. shape) or identity (e.g. a particular face) match the observer's goals.Simultaneously, it has been increasingly recognised in the literature that information processing issensitive to other types oftop-down processes, principally those gauged by thememory of past stimulation and one's expectations (see Figure 1A for a summar...

show abstract

Occipital Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Has Opposing Effects on Visual and Auditory Stimulus Detection: Implications for Multisensory Interactions

Abstract: Multisensory interactions occur early in time and

Cited by 165 publications

References 62 publications

Auditory–Visual Multisensory Interactions in Humans: Timing, Topography, Directionality, and Sources

Auditory–Visual Multisensory Interactions in Humans: Timing, Topography, Directionality, and Sources

Multisensory anatomical pathways

The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About