Decoding state specific connectivity during speech production and perception

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this study, the authors took advantage of a powerful method (iEEG) in a large participant cohort (N=42) to demonstrate specific functional connectivity signatures associated with speech. The results highlight the complementary utility of functional connectivity analysis to the more traditional iEEG approaches of characterizing local neural activity.

Strengths:

This is an interesting study on the important topic of cortical mechanisms of speech perception and production in humans. The authors provide strong evidence for specific functional connectivity signatures of speech-related cortical activity.

Weaknesses:

A potential issue of the work is the interpretation of the five studied experimental conditions as representing distinct cognitive states, where "task conditions" or "behavioral states" would have been more appropriate.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study, conducted by Esmaeili and colleagues, investigates the functional connectivity signatures of different auditory, visual, and motor states in 42 ECoG patients. Patients performed three tasks: picture naming, visual word reading, and auditory word repetition. They use an SVM classifier on correlation patterns across electrodes during these tasks, separating speech production from sensory perception, and incorporating baseline silence as another state. They find that it is possible to classify five states (auditory perception, picture viewing, word reading, speech production, and baseline) based on their connectivity patterns alone. Furthermore, they find a sparser set of "discriminative connections" for each state that can be used to predict each of these states. They then relate these connectivity matrices to high-gamma evoked data, and show largely overlapping relationships between the discriminative connections and the active high-gamma electrodes. However, there are still some connectivity nodes that are important in discriminating states, but that do not show high evoked activity, and vice versa. Overall, the study has a large number of patients, and the ability to decode cognitive state is compelling. The main weaknesses of the work are in placing the findings into a wider context for what additional information the connectivity analysis provides about brain processing of speech, since, as it stands, the analysis mostly reidentifies areas already known to be important for speaking, listening, naming, and visual processing.

Strengths:

(1) The authors were able to assess their connectivity analysis on a large cohort of patients with wide coverage across speech and language areas.

(2) The use of controlled tasks for picture naming, visual word reading, and auditory word repetition allows for parcellating specific components of stimulus perception and speech production.

(3) The authors chose not to restrict their connectivity analysis to previously identified high amplitude responses, which allowed them to find regions that are discriminative between different states in their speech tasks, but not necessarily highly active.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the work identifies some clear connectivity between brain areas during speech perception and production, it is not clear whether this approach allows us to learn anything new about brain systems for speech. The areas that are identified have been shown in other studies and are largely unsurprising - the auditory cortex is involved in hearing words, picture naming involves frontal and visual cortical interactions, and overt movements include the speech motor cortex. The temporal pole is a new area that shows up, but (see below) it is important to show that this region is not affected by artifacts. Overall, it would help if the authors could expand upon the novelty of their approach.

(2) Because the connectivity is derived from single trials, it is possible that some of the sparse connectivity seen in noncanonical areas is due to a common artifact across channels. The authors do employ a common average reference, which should help to reduce common-mode noise across all channels, but not smaller subsets. Could the authors include more information to show that this is not the case in their dataset? For example, the temporal pole electrodes show strong functional connectivity, but these areas can tend to include more EMG artifact or ocular artifact. Showing single-trial traces for some of these example pairs of electrodes and their FC measures could help in interpreting how robust the findings are.

(3) The connectivity matrices are defined by taking the correlation between all pairs of electrodes across 500-ms epochs for each cognitive state, presumably for electrodes that are time-aligned. However, it is likely that different areas will interact with different time delays - for example, activity in one area may lead to activity in another. It might be helpful to include some time lags between different brain areas if the authors are interested in dynamics between areas that are not simultaneous.

(4) In Figure 3, the baseline is most commonly confused with other categories (most notably, speech production, 22% of the time). Is there any intuition for why this might be? Could some of this confusion be due to task-irrelevant speech occurring during the baseline / have the authors verified that all pre-stimulus time periods were indeed silent?

(5) How similar are discriminative connections across participants? Do they tend to reflect the same sparse anatomical connections? It is not clear how similar the results are across participants.

(6) The results in Figure 5F are interesting and show that frontal electrodes are often highly functionally connected, but have low evoked activity. What do the authors believe this might reflect? What are these low-evoked activity electrodes potentially doing? Some (even speculative) mention might be helpful.

(7) One comparison that seems to be missing, if the authors would like to claim the utility of functional connectivity over evoked measures, is to directly compare a classifier based on the high gamma activity patterns alone, rather than the pairwise connectivity. Does the FC metric outperform simply using evoked activity?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

I read this manuscript with great interest. The purpose of this paper is to use human intracranial recordings in patients undergoing routine epilepsy surgery evaluation to investigate speech production and perception during five specific and controlled tasks (auditory perception, picture perception, reading perception, speech production, and baseline). Linear classifiers were used to decode specific states with a mean accuracy of 64.4%. The interpretation of these findings is that the classifiers reveal distinct network signatures "underlying auditory and visual perception as well as speech production." Perhaps the most interesting finding is that the network signatures, including both regions with robust local neuronal activity and those without. Further, this study addresses an important gap by examining functional connectivity during overt speech production.

The abbreviation ECoG is used throughout the manuscript, and the methods state that grids and strips were placed, though many epilepsy centers now employ intracerebral recordings. Does this manuscript only include patients with surface electrodes? Or are depth electrodes also included? The rendering maps show only the cortical surface, but depth recordings could be very interesting, given that this is a connectivity analysis.

Also interesting, given both the picture and reading task, is whether there is coverage of the occipitotemporal sulcus?

A major strength of the chosen paradigm is the combination of both perception (auditory or visual) and production (speech). Have the authors considered oculomotor EMG artifacts that can be associated with the change in visual stimuli during the task (see Abel et al. for an example PMID: 27075536, but see also PMID: 19234780 and PMID: 20696256).

I'm very interested in the findings in Figure 4D, with regard to the temporal pole. I would recommend that the authors unpack what it means that the ratio of electrodes with the strongest connections is highest, but active and discriminative is perhaps the lowest. We (I think many groups!) are interested in this region as a multimodal hub that provides feedback in various contexts (like auditory or visual perception).

Given the varieties of tasks and the fact that electrodes are always placed based on clinical necessity, are there concerns about electrode sampling bias?

This manuscript makes an important contribution by demonstrating that functional connectivity analysis reveals task-specific network signatures beyond what is captured by local neuronal activity measures (LFP). The finding that low-activity regions are engaged in task-specific classifications has important implications for future human LFP connectivity work.