The Gastric Network: How the stomach and the brain work together at rest
The brain is always active – even when it is at rest, it receives a continuous stream of information from other areas of the body. From gut feelings to heartbeats, this information is constantly monitored to maintain a state of physiological equilibrium known as homeostasis. Signals from the body, including the stomach, also influence a variety of mental processes and complex human behaviours (Critchley and Harrison, 2013; Herbert and Pollatos, 2012; Porciello et al., 2018). Although the anatomy of the homeostatic neural pathway is relatively well known (Craig, 2003), its physiology is less well understood.
During periods of wakeful rest, our brain generates its own spontaneous and synchronised activity within different groups of brain regions (known as resting-state networks). On the other hand, specialised cells in the stomach produce a slow, continuous pattern of electrical impulses that set the pace of stomach contractions during digestion. But the stomach also generates these signals when it is empty, which suggests that they may have another purpose. Now, in eLife, Ignacio Rebollo of the PSL Research University and co-workers – Anne-Dominique Devauchelle, Benoît Béranger, and Catherine Tallon-Baudry – report how they have combined two techniques, functional magnetic resonance imaging and electrogastrography, to shed new light on the interactions between the brain and the stomach (Rebollo et al., 2018).
Rebollo et al. placed electrodes on the abdomen of volunteers as they lay inside a brain scanner and analysed the coupling between the signals from the stomach and the brain using a method called phase-locking value analysis. The researchers discovered a new resting-state network – the gastric network – which fired in synchrony with the rhythm of the stomach (Figure 1A). Furthermore, the various brain regions within this network showed a delayed functional connectivity between each other.
Although the role of the gastric network remains unknown, Rebollo et al. reasoned that some of the brain regions within the network map information about vision, touch and movement in bodily coordinates. Thus, they advanced the tantalising hypothesis that this network coordinates different ‘body-centred maps’ in the brain. According to this, a region in the brain known as the insula should be strongly involved in the gastric network: this region receives direct input from the internal organs (e.g. stomach, intestine), which is integrated to create a coherent representation of the whole body (Critchley and Harrison, 2013; Craig, 2009). However, Rebollo et al. found that the insula was only marginally synchronised to the rhythm of the stomach.
Thus, we suggest that the gastric network may rather act as a homeostatic regulator of food intake. Indeed, it neatly overlaps with areas processing information from the face, mouth and hands, and with three brain regions activated by tongue- or hand-related actions (Amiez and Petrides, 2014). We speculate that the insula would play a bigger role in the network if at least one of the following applied: the fasting happened over a longer period; the participants had to complete tasks that made them focus on their own gut feelings (interoceptive tasks); the participants attached a higher emotional value to food, either as a source of reward or disgust, as happens in people with eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia nervosa (Figure 1B).
Due to the limitations of the phase-locking method (Lachaux et al., 1999), it remains unclear if the rhythmic interaction between the stomach and the brain is one-directional or two-directional. Clarifying this issue and measuring the stomach-brain coupling during conditions in which the body is far from homeostasis, and during interoceptive or emotional tasks, may help to shed light on the true functional role of the gastric network. We believe that the findings of Rebollo et al. not only open new avenues to improving our understanding of the resting-state activity, but also fire up an exciting debate on how signals from the enteric nervous system in the gut could shape the brain.
References
-
Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the bodyCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology 13:500–505.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00090-4
-
How do you feel--now? The anterior insula and human awarenessNature Reviews Neuroscience 10:59–70.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2555
-
The body in the mind: on the relationship between interoception and embodimentTopics in Cognitive Science 4:692–704.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01189.x
-
Measuring phase synchrony in brain signalsHuman Brain Mapping 8:194–208.https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1999)8:4<194::AID-HBM4>3.0.CO;2-C
-
The ’Enfacement’ illusion: a window on the plasticity of the selfCortex S0010-9452(18)30020-0.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.01.007
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2018, Porciello et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 5,196
- views
-
- 340
- downloads
-
- 9
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Further reading
-
- Neuroscience
The role of striatal pathways in cognitive processing is unclear. We studied dorsomedial striatal cognitive processing during interval timing, an elementary cognitive task that requires mice to estimate intervals of several seconds and involves working memory for temporal rules as well as attention to the passage of time. We harnessed optogenetic tagging to record from striatal D2-dopamine receptor-expressing medium spiny neurons (D2-MSNs) in the indirect pathway and from D1-dopamine receptor-expressing MSNs (D1-MSNs) in the direct pathway. We found that D2-MSNs and D1-MSNs exhibited distinct dynamics over temporal intervals as quantified by principal component analyses and trial-by-trial generalized linear models. MSN recordings helped construct and constrain a four-parameter drift-diffusion computational model in which MSN ensemble activity represented the accumulation of temporal evidence. This model predicted that disrupting either D2-MSNs or D1-MSNs would increase interval timing response times and alter MSN firing. In line with this prediction, we found that optogenetic inhibition or pharmacological disruption of either D2-MSNs or D1-MSNs increased interval timing response times. Pharmacologically disrupting D2-MSNs or D1-MSNs also changed MSN dynamics and degraded trial-by-trial temporal decoding. Together, our findings demonstrate that D2-MSNs and D1-MSNs had opposing dynamics yet played complementary cognitive roles, implying that striatal direct and indirect pathways work together to shape temporal control of action. These data provide novel insight into basal ganglia cognitive operations beyond movement and have implications for human striatal diseases and therapies targeting striatal pathways.
-
- Neuroscience
Chronic pain is a prevalent and debilitating condition whose neural mechanisms are incompletely understood. An imbalance of cerebral excitation and inhibition (E/I), particularly in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), is believed to represent a crucial mechanism in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. Thus, identifying a non-invasive, scalable marker of E/I could provide valuable insights into the neural mechanisms of chronic pain and aid in developing clinically useful biomarkers. Recently, the aperiodic component of the electroencephalography (EEG) power spectrum has been proposed to represent a non-invasive proxy for E/I. We, therefore, assessed the aperiodic component in the mPFC of resting-state EEG recordings in 149 people with chronic pain and 115 healthy participants. We found robust evidence against differences in the aperiodic component in the mPFC between people with chronic pain and healthy participants, and no correlation between the aperiodic component and pain intensity. These findings were consistent across different subtypes of chronic pain and were similarly found in a whole-brain analysis. Their robustness was supported by preregistration and multiverse analyses across many different methodological choices. Together, our results suggest that the EEG aperiodic component does not differentiate between people with chronic pain and healthy individuals. These findings and the rigorous methodological approach can guide future studies investigating non-invasive, scalable markers of cerebral dysfunction in people with chronic pain and beyond.