Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorSaad JbabdiUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Senior EditorPanayiota PoiraziFORTH Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Heraklion, Greece
Joint Public Review:
Summary:
In this interesting work, the authors investigated an important topical question: when we see travelling waves in cortical activity, is this due to true wave-like spread, or due to sequentially activated sources? In simulations, it is shown that sequential brain module activation can show up as a travelling wave - even in improved methods such as phase delay maps - and a variety of parameters is investigated. Then, in ex-vivo turtle eye-brain preparations, the authors show that visual cortex waves observable in local field potentials are in fact often better explained as areas D1 and D2 being sequentially activated. This has implications for how we think about travelling wave methodology and relevant analytical tools.
Strengths:
I enjoyed reading the discussion. The authors are careful in their claims, and point out that some phenomena may still indeed be genuine travelling waves, but we should have a higher evidence bar to claim this for a particular process in light of this paper and Zhigalov & Jensen (2023) (ref 44). Given this careful discussion, the claims made are well-supported by the experimental results. The discussion also gives a nice overview of potential options in light of this and future directions.
The illustration of different gaussian covariances leading to very different latency maps was interesting to see.
Furthermore, the methods are detailed and clearly structured and the Supplementary Figures, particularly single trial results, are useful and convincing.
Weaknesses:
The details of the sequentially activated Gaussian simulations give some useful results, but the fundamental idea still appears to be "sequential activation is often indistinguishable from a travelling wave", an idea advanced e.g. by Zhigalov & Jensen (2023). It takes a while until the (in my opinion) more intriguing experimental results.
One of the key claims is that the spikes are more consistent with two sequentially activated modules rather than a continuous wave (with Fig 3k and 3l key to support this). Whilst this is *more* consistent, it is worth mentioning that there seems to be stochasticity to this and between-trial variability, especially for spikes.