Dependence of Contextual Modulation in Macaque V1 on Interlaminar Signal Flow

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Zhu and colleagues used high-density Neuropixel probes to perform laminar recordings in V1 while presenting either small stimuli that stimulated the classical receptive field (CRF) or large stimuli whose border straddled the RF to provide nonclassical RF (nCRF) stimulation. Their main question was to understand the relative contribution of feedforward (FF), feedback (FB), and horizontal circuits to border ownership (Bown), which they addressed by measuring cross-correlation across layers. They found differences in cross-correlation between feedback/horizontal (FH) and input layers during CRF and nCRF stimulation.

Although the data looks high quality and analyses look mostly fine, I had a lot of difficulty understanding the logic in many places. Examples of my concerns are written below.

(1) What is the main question? The authors refer to nCRF stimulation emerging from either feedback from higher areas or horizontal connections from within the same area (e.g. lines 136 to 138 and again lines 223-232). I initially thought that the study would aim to distinguish between the two. However, the way the authors have clubbed the layers in 3D, the main question seems to be whether Bown is FF or FH (i.e., feedback and horizontal are clubbed). Is this correct? If so, I don't see the logic, since I can't imagine Bown to be purely FF. Thus, just showing differences between CRF stimulation (which is mainly expected to be FF) and nCRF stimulation is not surprising to me.

(2) Choice of layers for cross-correlation analysis: In the Introduction, and also in Figure 3C, it is mentioned that FF inputs arrive in 4C and 6, while FB/Horizontal inputs arrive at "superficial" and "deep", which I take as layer 2/3 and 5. So it is not clear to me why (i) layer 4A/B is chosen for analysis for Figure 3D (I would have thought layer 6 should have been chosen instead) and (ii) why Layers 5 and 6 are clubbed.

(3) Addressing the main question using cross-correlation analysis: I think the nice peaks observed in Figure 3B for some pairs show how spiking in one neuron affects the spiking in another one, with the delay in cross-correlation function arising from the conduction delay. This is shown nicely during CRF stimulation in Figure 3D between 4C -> 2/3, for example. However, the delay (positive or negative) is constrained by anatomical connectivity. For example, unless there are projections from 2/3 back to 4C which causes firing in a 2/3 layer neuron to cause a spike in a layer 4 neuron, we cannot expect to get a negative delay no matter what kind of stimulation (CRF versus nCRF) is used.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a study of how modulatory activity from outside the classical receptive field (cRF) differs from cRF stimulation. They study neural activity across the different layers of V1 in two anesthetized monkeys using Neuropixels probes. The monkeys are presented with drifting gratings and border-ownership tuning stimuli. They find that border-ownership tuning is organized into columns within V1, which is unexpected and exciting, and that the flow of activity from cell-to-cell (as judged by cross-correlograms between single units) is influenced by the type of visual stimulus: border-ownership tuning stimuli vs. drifting-grating stimuli.

Strengths:

The questions addressed by the study are of high interest, and the use of Neuropixels probes yields extremely high numbers of single-units and cross-correlation histograms (CCHs) which makes the results robust. The study is well-described.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses of the study are (a) the use of anesthetized animals, which raises questions about the nature of the modulatory signal being measured and the underlying logic of why a change in visual stimulus would produce a reversal in information flow through the cortical microcircuit and (b) the choice of visual stimuli, which do not uniquely isolate feedforward from feedback influences.

(1) The modulation latency seems quite short in Figure 2C. Have the authors measured the latency of the effect in the manuscript and how it compares to the onset of the visually driven response? It would be surprising if the latency was much shorter than 70ms given previous measurements of BO and figure-ground modulation latency in V2 and V1. On the same note, it might be revealing to make laminar profiles of the modulation (i.e. preferred - non-preferred border orientation) as it develops over time. Does the modulation start in feedback recipient layers?

(2) Can the authors show the average time course of the response elicited by preferred and non-preferred border ownership stimuli across all significant neurons?

(3) The logic of assuming that cRF stimulation should produce the opposite signal flow to border-ownership tuning stimuli is worth discussing. I suspect the key difference between stimuli is that they used drifting gratings as the cRF stimulus, the movement of the stimulus continually refreshes the retinal image, leading to continuous feedforward dominance of the signals in V1. Had they used a static grating, the spiking during the sustained portion of the response might also show more influence of feedback/horizontal connections. Do the initial spikes fired in response to the border-ownership tuning stimuli show the feedforward pattern of responses? The authors state that they did not look at cross-correlations during the initial response, but if they do, do they see the feedforward-dominated pattern? The jitter CCH analysis might suffice in correcting for the response transient.

(4) The term "nCRF stimulation" is not appropriate because the CRF is stimulated by the light/dark edge.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper by Zhu et al is on an important topic in visual neuroscience, the emergence in the visual cortex of signals about figures and ground. This topic also goes by the name border ownership. The paper utilizes modern recording techniques very skillfully to extend what is known about border ownership. It offers new evidence about the prevalence of border ownership signals across different cortical layers in V1 cortex. Also, it uses pairwise cross-correlation to study signal flow under different conditions of visual stimulation that include the border ownership paradigm.

Strengths:

The paper's strengths are its use of multi-electrode probes to study border ownership in many neurons simultaneously across the cortical layers in V1, and its innovation of using cross-correlation between cortical neurons -- when they are viewing border-ownership patterns or instead are viewing grating patterns restricted to the classical receptive field (CRF).

Weaknesses:

The paper's weaknesses are its largely incremental approach to the study of border ownership and the lack of a critical analysis of the cross-correlation data. The paper as it is now does not advance our understanding of border ownership; it mainly confirms prior work, and it does not challenge or revise consensus beliefs about mechanisms. However, it is possible that, in the rich dataset the authors have obtained, they do possess data that could be added to the paper to make it much stronger.

Critique:

The border ownership data on V1 offered in the paper replicates experimental results obtained by Zhou and von der Heydt (2000) and confirms the earlier results using the same analysis methods as Zhou. The incremental addition is that the authors found border ownership in all cortical layers extending Zhou's results that were only about layer 2/3.

The cross-correlation results show that the pattern of the cross-correlogram (CCG) is influenced by the visual pattern being presented. However, the results are not analyzed mechanistically, and the interpretation is unclear. For instance, the authors show in Figure 3 (and in Figure S2) that the peak of the CCG can indicate layer 2/3 excites layer 4C when the visual stimulus is the border ownership test pattern, a large square 8 deg on a side. But how can layer 2/3 excite layer 4C? The authors do not raise or offer an answer to this question. Similar questions arise when considering the CCG of layer 4A/B with layer 2/3. What is the proposed pathway for layer 2/3 to excite 4A/B? Other similar questions arise for all the interlaminar CCG data that are presented. What known functional connections would account for the measured CCGs?

The problems in understanding the CCG data are indirectly caused by the lack of a critical analysis of what is happening in the responses that reveal the border ownership signals, as in Figure 2. Let's put it bluntly - are border ownership signals excitatory or inhibitory? The reason I raise this question is that the present authors insightfully place border ownership as examples of the action of the non-classical receptive field (nCRF) of cortical cells. Most previous work on the nCRF (many papers cited by the authors) reveal the nCRF to be inhibitory or suppressive. In order to know whether nCRF signals are excitatory or inhibitory, one needs a baseline response from the CRF, so that when you introduce nCRF signals you can tell whether the change with respect to the CRF is up or down. As far as I know, prior work on border ownership has not addressed this question, and the present paper doesn't either. This is where the rich dataset that the present authors possess might be used to establish a fundamental property of border ownership.

Then we must go back to consider what the consequences of knowing the sign of the border ownership signal would mean for interpreting the CCG data. If the border ownership signals from extrastriate feedback or, alternatively, from horizontal intrinsic connections, are excitatory, they might provide a shared excitatory input to pairs of cells that would show up in the CCG as a peak at 0 delay. However, if the border ownership manuscript signals are inhibitory, they might work by exciting only inhibitory neurons in V1. This could have complicated consequences for the CCG. The interpretation of the CCG data in the present version of the m is unclear (see above). Perhaps a clearer interpretation could be developed once the authors know better what the border ownership signals are.

My critique of the CCG analysis applies to Figure 5 also. I cannot comprehend the point of showing a very weak correlation of CCG asymmetry with Border Ownership Index, especially when what CCG asymmetry means is unclear mechanistically. Figure 5 does not make the paper stronger in my opinion.

In Figure 3, the authors show two CCGs that involve 4C--4C pairs. It would be nice to know more about such pairs. If there are any 6--6 pairs, what they look like also would be interesting. The authors also in Figure 3 show CCG's of two 4C--4A/B pairs and it would be quite interesting to know how such CCGs behave when CRF and nCRF stimuli are compared. In other words, the authors have shown us they have many data but have chosen not to analyze them further or to explain why they chose not to analyze them. It might help the paper if the authors would present all the CCG types they have. This suggestion would be helpful when the authors know more about the sign of border ownership signals, as discussed at length above.