Enhanced Tactile Coding in Rat Neocortex Under Darkness

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to investigate how short-term visual deprivation influences tactile processing in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) of sighted rats. They justify the study based on previous studies that have shown that long-term blindness can enhance tactile perception, and aim to investigate the neural mechanisms underlying rapid, short-term cross-modal plasticity. The authors recorded local field potentials from S1 as rats encountered different tactile textures (smooth and rough sandpaper) under light and dark conditions. They used deep learning techniques to decode the neural signals and assess how tactile representations changed across the four different conditions. Their goal was to uncover whether the absence of visual cues leads to a rapid reorganization of tactile encoding in the brain.

Strengths:

The study effectively integrates high-density local field potential (LFP) recordings with convolutional neural network (CNN) analysis. This combination allows for decoding high-dimensional population-level signals, revealing changes in neural representations that traditional analyses (e.g., amplitude measures) failed to detect. The custom treadmill paradigm permits independent manipulation of visual and tactile inputs under stable locomotion conditions. Gait analysis confirms that motor behavior was consistent across conditions, strengthening the conclusion that neural changes are due to sensory input rather than movement artifacts.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the study interprets the emergence of more distinct texture representations in the dark as evidence of rapid cross-modal plasticity, the claim rests on correlational data from a short-term manipulation and decoding analysis. The authors show that CNN-derived feature embeddings cluster more clearly by texture in the dark, but this does not directly demonstrate plasticity in the classical sense (e.g., synaptic or circuit-level reorganization).

(2) Although gait was controlled, changes in arousal or exploratory behavior in light versus dark conditions might contribute to the observed neural differences. These factors are acknowledged but not directly measured (e.g., via pupillometry or cortical state indicators).

(3) Moreover, the time course of the observed changes (within 10 minutes) is quite rapid, and while intriguing, the study does not include direct evidence that the underlying circuits were reorganized - only that population-level signals become more discriminable. As such, the term "plasticity" may overstate the conclusions and should be interpreted with caution unless validated by additional causal or longitudinal data.

(4) The study highlights the forelimb region of S1 and a post-contact temporal window as particularly important for decoding texture, based on occlusion and integrated gradient analyses. However, this finding may be somewhat circular: The LFPs were aligned to forelimb contact, and the floor textures were sensed primarily via the forelimbs, making it unsurprising that forelimb electrodes were most informative. The observed temporal window corresponds directly to the event-aligned epoch, and while it may shift slightly in duration in the dark, this could reflect general differences in sensory gain or arousal, rather than changes in stimulus-specific encoding. Thus, while these findings are consistent with somatotopy and context-dependent dynamics, they do not provide strong independent evidence for novel spatial or temporal organization.

(5) While the neural data suggest enhanced tactile representations, the study does not assess whether rats' actual tactile perception improved. Without a behavioral readout (e.g., discrimination accuracy), claims about perceptual enhancement remain speculative.

(6) In addition to point 4, the authors discuss implications for sensory rehabilitation, including Braille training and haptic feedback enhancement. However, the lack of actual chronic or even more acute pathological sensory deprivation, behavioral data, or subsequent intervention in this study limits the ability to draw translational conclusions. It remains unknown whether the more distinct neural representations observed actually translate into better tactile performance, discriminability, or perception. Additionally, extrapolating from rats walking on sandpaper in the dark to human rehabilitative contexts is speculative without a clearer behavioral or mechanistic bridge. The potential is certainly there, but the claim is currently aspirational rather than empirically grounded.

(7) While the CNN showed good performance, details on generalization robustness and validation (e.g., cross-validation folds, variance across animals) are not deeply discussed. Also, while explainability tools were used, interpretability of CNNs remains limited, and more transparent models (e.g., linear classifiers or dimensionality reduction) could offer complementary insights.

Therefore, while the authors raise interesting hypotheses around rapid plasticity, somatotopic dynamics, and rehabilitation, the evidence for each is indirect. Stronger claims would require causal experiments, behavioral readouts, and mechanistic specificity beyond what the current data can provide.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Yamashiro et al. investigated how the transient absence of visual input (i.e., darkness) impacts tactile neural encoding in the rat primary somatosensory cortex (S1). They recorded local field potentials (LFPs) using a 32-channel array implanted in forelimb and hindlimb primary somatosensory cortex while rats walked on smooth or rough textures under illuminated and dark conditions. Employing a convolutional neural network (CNN), they successfully decoded both texture and lighting conditions from the LFPs. The authors conclude that the subtle differences in LFP patterns underlie tactile representation of surface roughness and become more distinct in darkness, suggesting a rapid cross-modal reorganization of the neural code for this sensory feature.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript addresses a valuable question regarding how sensory cortices adapt dynamically to changes in sensory context.

(2) Utilization of machine learning (CNNs) allowed the authors to go beyond conventional amplitude-based analyses, potentially uncovering a subtle but interesting phenomenon.

Weaknesses:

(1) Despite applying explainability techniques to the CNN-based decoder, the study does not clearly demonstrate the precise "subtle, high-dimensional patterns" exploited by the CNN for surface roughness decoding, limiting the physiological interpretability of the results. Additional analyses (e.g., detailed waveform morphology analysis on grand averages, time-frequency decompositions, or further use of explainability methods) are necessary to clarify the exact nature of the discriminative activity features enabling the CNN to decode surface roughness and how these change with the sensory context (i.e., in light or darkness).

(2) The claim regarding cross-modal representation reorganization heavily relies on a silhouette analysis (Figure 5C), which shows a modest effect size and borderline statistical significance (p≈0.05 with n=9+2). More rigorous statistical quantification, such as permutation tests and reporting underlying cluster distances for all animals, would strengthen confidence in this finding.

(3) While the authors recorded in the somatosensory cortex, primarily known for its tactile responsivity, I would be cautious not to rule out a priori the presence of crossmodal (visual) responses in the area. In this case, the stronger texture separation in darkness might be explained by the absence of some visually-evoked potentials (VEPs) rather than genuine cross-modal reorganization. Clarification is needed to rule out visual interference and this would strengthen the claim.

(4) Behavioural controls are limited to gross gait parameters; more detailed analyses of locomotor behavior and additional metrics (e.g., pupil size or locomotor variance) would robustly rule out potential arousal or motor confounds.

(5) The consistent ordering of trials (10 minutes of light then 10 minutes of dark) could introduce confounds such as fatigue or satiation (and also related arousal state), which should be controlled by analyzing sessions with reversed condition ordering.

(6) The focus on forelimb-aligned LFP analyses raises the possibility that hindlimb-aligned data might yield different conclusions, suggesting alignment effects might bias the results.

(7) The authors' dismissal of amplitude-based metrics as ineffective is inadequately substantiated. A clearer demonstration (e.g., event-related waveforms averaged by conditions, presented both spatially and temporally) would support this claim.

(8) Wording ambiguity regarding "attribution score" versus "activation amplitude" (Figure 5) complicates the interpretation of key findings. This distinction must be clarified for proper assessment of the results.

(9) Generalization across animals remains unaddressed. The current within-subject decoding setup limits conclusions regarding shared neural representations across individuals. Adopting cross-validation strategies and exploring between-animal analyses would add significant value to the manuscript.