1. Neuroscience

Resolving multisensory and attentional influences across cortical depth in sensory cortices

  1. Remi Gau  Is a corresponding author
  2. Pierre-Louis Bazin
  3. Robert Trampel
  4. Robert Turner
  5. Uta Noppeney
  1. University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
  2. Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
  3. Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Germany
  4. University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
  5. University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
  6. Radboud University, Netherlands
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46856
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Remi Gau
  2. Pierre-Louis Bazin
  3. Robert Trampel
  4. Robert Turner
  5. Uta Noppeney
(2020)
Resolving multisensory and attentional influences across cortical depth in sensory cortices
eLife 9:e46856.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46856
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS
4 figures, 3 tables and 5 additional files

Figures

Figure 1 with 2 supplements
Download asset Open asset
Experimental design, timeline and cortical layering.

(A) Experimental design: Participants were presented with auditory, visual and audiovisual looming stimuli under auditory and visual attention. (B) Example trial and timeline: Participants were …

Figure 1—figure supplement 1
Download asset Open asset
Behavioural results.

Percentage of responses to auditory (red) and visual (blue) targets in auditory, visual and audiovisual blocks (along the x-axis) and under auditory (top panel) and visual (bottom panel) attention. …

Figure 1—figure supplement 2
Download asset Open asset
Segmentation and coregistration.

Sagittal section of T1 structural images (left), the corresponding coregistered mean EPI images of four representative participants. The definition of the six laminae is overlaid in A1.

Figure 2 with 3 supplements
Download asset Open asset
Auditory and visual deactivations.

(A) BOLD response profiles: Rows 1 and 3: The BOLD response (i.e. B parameters, across subjects’ mean ± SEM) for visual and auditory looming stimuli averaged over auditory and visual attention in …

Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Download asset Open asset
Auditory and visual activations.

(A) BOLD response profiles: Row 1 and 3: The BOLD response (i.e. B parameters, across subjects’ mean ± SEM) for auditory and visual activations induced by looming stimuli averaged over auditory and …

Figure 2—figure supplement 2
Download asset Open asset
Auditory and visual responses in visual areas.

Surface projection for individual subjects: Within subject ‘constant’ shape parameter estimates of the laminar BOLD response profile for visual (column i and ii) and auditory (column iii and iv) …

Figure 2—figure supplement 3
Download asset Open asset
Auditory and visual responses in auditory areas.

Surface projection for individual subjects: Within subject ‘constant’ shape parameter estimates of the laminar BOLD response profile for visual (column i and ii) and auditory (column iii and iv) are …

Figure 3 with 2 supplements
Download asset Open asset
Cross-modal modulation in auditory areas.

(A) Laminar profiles: Rows 1 and 3: The BOLD response (solid line; column 1 and 3) and decoding accuracy (dashed line; columns 2 and 4) (across subjects’ mean ± SEM) for [AV-A] in A1 and PT is shown …

Figure 3—figure supplement 1
Download asset Open asset
Cross-modal modulation in visual areas.

Laminar profiles: Rows 1 and 3: The BOLD response (solid line; column 1 and 3) and decoding accuracy (dashed line; columns 2 and 4) (across subjects’ mean ± SEM) for [AV-A] in V1 and V2/3 is shown …

Figure 3—figure supplement 2
Download asset Open asset
Raster plots for auditory induced activations and visual induced deactivations in auditory areas.

The raster plots illustrate the statistical relationship between the ‘constant’ shape parameters for the visual evoked response [V-Fix]AttA, AttV and auditory evoked response [A-Fix]AttA, AttV in A1 …

Figure 4
Download asset Open asset
Attentional modulation.

(A) Laminar profiles: Rows 1, 3, 5, 7: The BOLD response (solid line; columns 1 and 3) and decoding accuracy (dashed line; columns 2 and 4) (across subjects’ mean ± SEM) for attentional modulation …

Tables

Table 1
Auditory and visual deactivations.
Linear or constantConstantLinear
[V-fix]Att_A, Att_VMean(A1, PT)F(2,40) = 9.280p<0.001t(10)=−2.460p=0.017*F(1,20) = 2.083p=0.164
A1t(10)=−2.077p=0.032*
PTt(10)=−2.042p=0.034*
[A-fix]Att_A, Att_Vmean(V1, V23)F(2,40) = 58.615p<0.001t(10)=−5.547p<0.001*F(1,20) = 22.433p<0.001
V1t(10)=−6.538p<0.001*t(10)=−5.080p<0.001
V2-3t(10)=−4.305p<0.001*t(10)=−4.142p=0.002

  1. *indicates p-values based on a one-sided t-test based on a priori hypotheses. p-values<0.05 are indicated in bold. n = 11

    Using 2 (shape parameter: constant, linear) x 2 (ROI: primary, non-primary) linear mixed effects models, we performed the following statistical comparisons in a 'step down procedure':

  2. 1. Two-dimensional F-test assessing whether the constant or linear parameter (e.g. each averaged across ROIs in auditory resp. visual cortices), was significantly different from zero (dark grey),

    2. If this two-dimensional F-test was significant, we computed one dimensional F-tests separately for the constant and the linear parameters (again averaged across auditory resp. visual ROIs) (light grey),

  3. 3. If the one dimensional F-test was significant, we computed follow-up t-tests separately for each of the two ROIs (white).

Table 2
Effects of the cross-modal modulation on the laminar BOLD response and decoding accuracy profiles in auditory areas.
A) BOLD profile
linear or constantconstantlinear
[AV - A]Att_A, Att_Vmean(A1, PT)F(2,40) = 0.196p=0.823
B) Decoding profile
linear or constantconstantlinear
[AV VS A]att A, att Vmean(A1, PT)F(2,40) = 34.946p<0.001F(1,20) = 21.966p<0.001F(1,20) = 1.850p=0.189
A1t(10)=3.867p=0.003
PTt(10)=4.992p<0.001

  1. Using 2 (shape parameter: constant, linear) x 2 (ROI: primary, non-primary) linear mixed effects models, we performed the following statistical comparisons in a 'step down procedure':

    1. Two-dimensional F-test assessing whether the constant or linear parameter (e.g. each averaged across ROIs in auditory resp. visual cortices), was significantly different from zero (dark grey),

  2. 2. If this two-dimensional F-test was significant, we computed one dimensional F-tests separately for the constant and the linear parameters (again averaged across auditory resp. visual ROIs) (light grey),

    3. If the one dimensional F-test was significant, we computed follow-up t-tests separately for each of the two ROIs (white).

Table 3
Effects of the attentional modulation (irrespective of stimulus type) on the laminar BOLD response and decoding accuracy profiles.
A) BOLD profile
linear or constantconstantlinear
[Att_V - Att_A]A, V, AVmean(A1, PT)F(2,40) = 12.602p<0.001F(1,20) = 9.249p=0.006F(1,20) = 12.163p=0.002
A1t(10)=1.882p=0.089t(10)=3.123p=0.011
PTt(10)=4.523p=0.001t(10)=3.361p=0.007
[Att_V - Att_A]A, V, AVmean(V1, V23)F(2,40) = 0.669p=0.518
B) Decoding profile
linear or constantconstantlinear
[Att_A VS Att_V]A, V, AVmean(A1, PT)F(2,40) = 4.687p=0.015F(1,20) = 4.882p=0.039F(1,20) = 4.028p=0.058
A1t(10)=1.260p=0.236
PTt(10)=2.031p=0.070
[Att_A VS Att_V]A, V, AVmean(V1, V23)F(2,40) = 20.026p<0.001F(1,20) = 13.564p=0.001F(1,20) = 9.951p=0.005
V1t(10)=2.472p=0.033t(10)=1.359p=0.204
V2-3t(10)=4.298p=0.002t(10)=3.089p=0.011

  1. Using 2 (shape parameter: constant, linear) x 2 (ROI: primary, non-primary) linear mixed effects models, we performed the following statistical comparisons in a 'step down procedure':

    1. Two-dimensional F-test assessing whether the constant or linear parameter (e.g. each averaged across ROIs in auditory resp. visual cortices), was significantly different from zero (dark grey),

  2. 2. If this two-dimensional F-test was significant, we computed one dimensional F-tests separately for the constant and the linear parameters (again averaged across auditory resp. visual ROIs) (light grey),

    3. If the one dimensional F-test was significant, we computed follow-up t-tests separately for each of the two ROIs (white).p-values<0.05 are indicated in bold. n = 11.

Additional files

Supplementary file 1

Behavioural results.

Notes: Percentage of target responses (mean and STD across subjects) in the six conditions of our 2 × 3 experimental design. n = 11 Please note that responses to visual targets under auditory attention and auditory targets under visual attention are false alarms.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/46856/elife-46856-supp1-v2.docx
Supplementary file 2

ROI size and coverage.

Notes: ‘Number of vertices’ refers to the vertices with valid data at all the sampled cortical depths. This vertex count was divided by the total number of vertices included in the initial ROI definition to compute the ‘Fraction of the ROI covered’. Note that those numbers are pooled over both hemispheres. n = 11

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/46856/elife-46856-supp2-v2.docx
Supplementary file 3

Auditory and visual activations.

Using 2 (shape parameter: constant, linear) x 2 (ROI: primary, non-primary) linear mixed effects models, we performed the following statistical comparisons in a 'step down procedure':

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/46856/elife-46856-supp3-v2.docx
Supplementary file 4

Cross-modal modulation in visual areas.

Using 2 (shape parameter: constant, linear) x 2 (ROI: primary, non-primary) linear mixed effects models, we performed the following statistical comparisons in a 'step down procedure':

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/46856/elife-46856-supp4-v2.docx
Transparent reporting form
https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/46856/elife-46856-transrepform-v2.docx

Download links