Differential destinations, dynamics, and functions of high- and low-order features in the feedback signal during object processing

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study investigates spatial and temporal aspects of feedback information in the brain during categorization tasks. The authors found that feedback to V1 contained low-level features and was present in the deep layers of V1 originating presumably from occipito-temporal brain regions. High-level category feedback was found in the deep and the superficial layers and was directed to V1 from occipitotemporal and parietal cortices. This study raises a timely question in the fields of object categorization and predictive coding about the granularity of feedback and its separability by cortical depth and time course.

Here are a couple of concerns and questions:

The authors argue that low-level features in a feedback format could be decoded only from deep layers of V1 (and not superficial layers) during a perceptual categorization task. However, previous studies (Bergman et al., 2024; Iamshchinina et al., 2021) demonstrated that low-level features in the form of feedback can be decoded from both superficial and deep layers. While this result could be due to perceptual task or highly predictable orientation feature (orientation was kept the same throughout the experimental block), an alternative explanation is a weaker representation of orientation in the feedback (even before splitting by layers there is only a trend towards significance; also granger causality for orientation information in MEG part is lower than that for category in peripheral categorization task), because it is orthogonal to the task demand. It would be helpful if the authors added a statistical comparison of the strength of category and orientation representations in each layer and across the layers.

The authors argue that category feedback is not driven by low-level confounding features embedded in the stimuli. They demonstrate the ability to decode orientations, particularly well represented by V1, in the absence of category discrimination. However, the orientation is not a category-discriminating feature in this task. It could be that the category-discriminating features cannot be as well decoded from V1 activity patterns as orientations. Also, there are a number of these category discriminating features and it is unclear if it is a variation in their representational strength or merely the absence of the task-driven enhancement that preempts category decoding in V1 during the foveal task. In other words, I am not sure whether, if orientation was a category-specific feature (sharpies are always horizontal and smoothies are vertical), there would still be no category decoding.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript reports high-resolution functional MRI data and MEG data revealing additional mechanistic information about an established paradigm studying how foveal regions of the primary visual cortex (V1) are involved in processing peripheral visual stimuli. Because of the retinotopic organization of V1, peripheral stimuli should not evoke responses in the regions of V1 that represent stimuli in the center of the visual field (the fovea). However, functional MRI responses in foveal regions do reflect the characteristics of peripheral visual stimuli - this is a surprising finding first reported in 2008. The present study uses fMRI data with sub-millimeter resolution to study how responses at different depths in the foveal gray matter do or don't reflect peripheral object characteristics during 2 different tasks: one in which observers needed to make detailed judgments about object identity, and one in which observers needed to make more coarse judgments about object orientation. FMRI results reveal interesting and informative patterns in these two conditions. A follow-on MEG study yields information about the timing of these responses. Put together, the findings settle some questions in the field and add new information about the nature of visual feedback to V1.

Strengths:

(1) Rigorous and appropriate use of "laminar fMRI" techniques.

(2) The introduction does an excellent job of contextualizing the work.

(3) Control experiments and analyses are designed and implemented well

Weaknesses:

(1) While not necessarily a weakness, I do not fully agree with the description of the 2 kinds of feedback information as "low-order" and "high-order". I understand the motivation to do this - orientation is typically considered a low-level visual feature. But when it's the orientation of an entire object, not a single edge, orientation can only be defined after the elements of the object are grouped. Also, the discrimination between spikies and smoothies requires detecting the orientations of particular edges that form the identifying features. To my mind, it would make more sense to refer to discrimination of object orientation as "coarse" feature discrimination, and orientation of object identity as "fine" feature discrimination. Thus, the sentence on line 83, for example, would read "Interestingly, feedback with fine and coarse feature information exhibits different laminar profiles.".

(2) Figure 2 and text on lines 185, and 186: it is difficult to interpret/understand the findings in foveal ROIs for the foveal control task without knowing how big the ROI was. Foveal regions of V1 are grossly expanded by cortical magnification, such that the central half-degree can occupy several centimeters across the cortical surface. Without information on the spatial extent of the foveal ROI compared to the object size, we can't know whether the ROI included voxels whose population receptive fields were expected to include the edges of the objects.

(3) Line 143 and ROI section of the methods: in order for the reader to understand how robust the responses and analyses are, voxel counts should be provided for the ROIs that were defined, as well as for the number (fraction) of voxels excluded due to either high beta weights or low signal intensity (lines 505-511).

(4) I wasn't able to find mention of how multiple-comparisons corrections were performed for either the MEG or fMRI data (except for one Holm-Bonferonni correction in Figure S1), so it's unclear whether the reported p-values are corrected.