Visual–auditory spatial processing in auditory cortical neurons

Bizley, Jennifer K.; King, Andrew J.

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.02.087

Cited by 114 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(89 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

104

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: 56%

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

Cappe¹,

Thut²,

Romei³

et al. 2010

J. Neurosci.

128

112

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: 56%

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

Cappe¹,

Thut²,

Romei³

et al. 2010

J. Neurosci.

128

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the non-human primate (see also other chapters in this issue), several electrophysiological experiments have similarly revealed audio-visual interactions in the auditory cortex (Ghazanfar et al, 2005;Bizley et al, 2007;Bizley and King, 2008;Cappe et al, 2007b;Kayser et al, 2008) down to the level of A1 (Kayser et al, 2008). These recent results were highly complementary to the pioneer works of Schroeder's laboratory that have revealed the multimodal feature of the monkey auditory belt where both visual and somatosensory responses can be evoked (Schroeder et al, 2001;Schroeder and Foxe, 2002;Fu et al, 2003).…”

Section: Electrophysiological Evidence In the Primary Sensory Areasmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Although somewhat surprising, there is evidence for the existence of multisensory neurons in areas traditionally considered as unisensory, such as the visual cortex (between areas 17 and 18a) in the rat (Barth et al, 1995) and in the auditory cortex of the monkey (Watanabe and Iwai, 1991;Schroeder et al, 2001;Cappe et al, 2007b;Kayser et al, 2008) and of the ferret (Bizley et al, 2007;Bizley and King, 2008). In addition, previous studies have shown the existence of scattered projections of the auditory cortex towards the visual area 18 in the rat and the cat (Miller and Vogt, 1984;Innocenti et al, 1988).…”

Section: Primary Sensory Areas Receive Non-specific Inputsmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

“…Because the physiologically identified areas differ in their sensitivity to spatial and nonspatial features of a sound source (Bizley and King, 2008; Bizley et al, 2009; Bizley et al, 2010), an open question is the extent to which they represent different processing pathways, and how these areas relate to cortical fields in other species. To address these questions, a series of retrograde and anterograde injections (Table 1) were made in a total of 13 ferrets to examine the projections within and between each of the physiologically or anatomically defined auditory areas.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have previously demonstrated that within the different regions of ferret auditory cortex, spatial sensitivity to auditory, visual, and bisensory stimulation is greatest in the ADF (Bizley and King, 2008), whereas PSF neurons were the most likely to have their auditory spatial tuning enhanced by the addition of a spatially and temporally congruent visual stimulus (Bizley and King, 2008). The anatomical data presented here suggest that the PSF is ideally positioned to integrate spatial information conveyed by neurons in fields on the AEG.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortico‐cortical connectivity within ferret auditory cortex

Bizley

Bajo

Nodal³

et al. 2015

J of Comparative Neurology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite numerous studies of auditory cortical processing in the ferret (Mustela putorius), very little is known about the connections between the different regions of the auditory cortex that have been characterized cytoarchitectonically and physiologically. We examined the distribution of retrograde and anterograde labeling after injecting tracers into one or more regions of ferret auditory cortex. Injections of different tracers at frequency‐matched locations in the core areas, the primary auditory cortex (A1) and anterior auditory field (AAF), of the same animal revealed the presence of reciprocal connections with overlapping projections to and from discrete regions within the posterior pseudosylvian and suprasylvian fields (PPF and PSF), suggesting that these connections are frequency specific. In contrast, projections from the primary areas to the anterior dorsal field (ADF) on the anterior ectosylvian gyrus were scattered and non‐overlapping, consistent with the non‐tonotopic organization of this field. The relative strength of the projections originating in each of the primary fields differed, with A1 predominantly targeting the posterior bank fields PPF and PSF, which in turn project to the ventral posterior field, whereas AAF projects more heavily to the ADF, which then projects to the anteroventral field and the pseudosylvian sulcal cortex. These findings suggest that parallel anterior and posterior processing networks may exist, although the connections between different areas often overlap and interactions were present at all levels. J. Comp. Neurol. 523:2187–2210, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Visual–auditory spatial processing in auditory cortical neurons

Cited by 114 publications

References 58 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

Cortico‐cortical connectivity within ferret auditory cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About