Non-feature-specific elevated responses and feature-specific backward replay in human brain induced by visual sequence exposure

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study identifies two types of activation: one that is cue-triggered and non-specific to motion directions, and another that is specific to the exposed motion directions but occurs in a reversed manner. The finding that activity in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) preceded that in the visual cortex suggests that the visual cortex may serve as a platform for the manifestation of replay events, which potentially enhance visual sequence learning.

Strengths:

Identifying the two types of activation after exposure to a sequence of motion directions is very interesting. The experimental design, procedures, and analyses are solid. The findings are interesting and novel.

Weaknesses:

It was not immediately clear to me why the second type of activation was suggested to occur spontaneously. The procedural differences in the analyses that distinguished between the two types of activation need to be a little better clarified.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This paper shows and analyzes an interesting phenomenon. It shows that when people are exposed to sequences of moving dots (that is moving dots in one direction, followed by another direction, etc.), showing either the starting movement direction or ending movement direction causes a coarse-grained brain response that is similar to that elicited by the complete sequence of 4 directions. However, they show by decoding the sensor responses that this brain activity actually does not carry information about the actual sequence and the motion directions, at least not on the time scale of the initial sequence. They also show a reverse reply on a highly compressed time scale, which is elicited during the period of elevated activity, and activated by the first and last elements of the sequence, but not others. Additionally, these replays seem to occur during periods of cortical ripples, similar to what is found in animal studies.

These results are intriguing. They are based on MEG recordings in humans, and finding such replays in humans is novel. Also, this is based on what seems to be sophisticated statistical analysis. However, this is the main problem with this paper. The statistical analysis is not explained well at all, and therefore its validity is hard to evaluate. I am not at all saying it is incorrect; what I am saying is that given how it is explained, it cannot be evaluated.