Causal Role of the Frontal Eye Field in Attention-induced Ocular Dominance Plasticity

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
Based on a "dichoptic-background-movie" paradigm that modulates ocular dominance, the present study combines fMRI and TMS to examine the role of the frontoparietal attentional network in ocular dominance shifts. The authors claimed a causal role of FEF in generating the attention-induced ocular dominance shift.

Strengths:
A combination of fMRI, TMS, and "dichoptic-background-movie" paradigm techniques is used to reveal the causal role of the frontoparietal attentional network in ocular dominance shifts. The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data.

Weaknesses:
The relationship between eye dominance, eye-based attention shift, and cortical functions remains unclear and merits further delineation. The rationale of the experimental design related to the hemispheric asymmetry in the FEF and other regions should be clarified.

Theoretically, how the eye-related functions in this area could be achieved, and how it interacts with the ocular representation in V1 warrant further clarification.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary
Song et al investigate the role of the frontal eye field (FEF) and the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) in mediating the shift in ocular dominance (OD) observed after a period of dichoptic stimulation during which attention is selectively directed to one eye. This manipulation has been previously found to transiently shift OD in favor of the unattended eye, similar to the effect of short-term monocular deprivation. To this aim, the authors combine psychophysics, fMRI, and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). In the first experiment, the authors determine the regions of interest (ROIs) based on the responses recorded by fMRI during either dichoptic or binocular stimulation, showing selective recruitment of the right FEF and IPS during the dichoptic condition, in line with the involvement of eye-based attention. In a second experiment, the authors investigate the causal role of these two ROIs in mediating the OD shift observed after a period of dichoptic stimulation by selectively inhibiting with TMS (using continuous theta burst stimulation, cTBS), before the adaptation period (50 min exposure to dichoptic stimulation). They show that, when cTBS is delivered on the FEF, but not the IPS or the vertex, the shift in OD induced by dichoptic stimulation is reduced, indicating a causal involvement of the FEF in mediating this form of short-term plasticity. A third control experiment rules out the possibility that TMS interferes with the OD task (binocular rivalry), rather than with the plasticity mechanisms. From this evidence, the authors conclude that the FEF is one of the areas mediating the OD shift induced by eye-selective attention.

Strengths
1. The experimental paradigm is sound and the authors have thoroughly investigated the neural correlates of an interesting form of short-term visual plasticity combining different techniques in an intelligent way.

2. The results are solid and the appropriate controls have been performed to exclude potential confounds.

3. The results are very interesting, providing new evidence both about the neural correlates of eye-based attention and the involvement of extra-striate areas in mediating short-term OD plasticity in humans, with potential relevance for clinical applications (especially in the field of amblyopia).

Weaknesses
1. Ethics: more details about the ethics need to be included in the manuscript. It is only mentioned for experiment 1 that participants "provided informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences". (Which version of the Declaration of Helsinki? The latest version requires the pre-registration of the study. The code of the approved protocol together with the code and date of the approval should be provided.) There is no mention of informed consent procedures or ethics approval for the TMS experiments. This is a huge concern, especially for brain stimulation experiments!

2. Statistics: the methods section should include a sub-section describing in detail all the statistical analyses performed for the study. Moreover, in the results section, statistical details should be added to support the fMRI results. In the current version of the manuscript, the claims are not supported by statistical evidence.

3. Interpretation of the results: the TMS results are very interesting and convincing regarding the involvement of the FEF in the build-up of the OD shift induced by dichoptic stimulation, however, I am not sure that the authors can claim that this effect is related to eye-based attention, as cTBS has no effect on the blob detection task during dichoptic stimulation. If the FEF were causally involved in eye-based attention, one would expect a change in performance in this task during dichoptic stimulation, perhaps a similar performance for the unattended and attended eye. The authors speculate that the sound could have an additional role in driving eye-based attention, which might explain the lack of effect for the blob discrimination task, however, this hypothesis has not been tested.

4. Writing: in general, the manuscript is well written, but clarity should be improved in certain sections.

a. fMRI results: the first sentence is difficult to understand at first read, but it is crucial to understand the results, please reformulate and clarify.

b. Experiment 3: the rationale for experiment one should be straightforward, without a long premise explaining why it would not be necessary.

c. Discussion: the language is a bit familiar here and there, a more straightforward style should be preferred (one example: p.19 second paragraph).

5. Minor: the authors might consider using the term "participant" or "observer" instead of "subject" when referring to the volunteers who participated in the study.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
This study studied the neural mechanisms underlying the shift of ocular dominance induced by "dichoptic-backward-movie" adaptation. The study is self-consistent.

Strengths:
The experimental design is solid and progressive (relationship among three studies), and all of the raised research questions were well answered.

The logic behind the neural mechanisms is solid.

The findings regarding the cTMS (especially the position/site can be useful for future medical implications).

Weaknesses:
Why does the "dichoptic-backward-movie" adaptation matter? This part is severely missing. This kind of adaptation is neither intuitive like the classical (Gbison) visual adaptation, nor practical as adaptation as a research paradigm as well as the fundamental neural mechanism. If this part is not clearly stated and discussed, this study is just self-consistent in terms of its own research question. There are tons of "cool" phenomena in which the neural mechanisms are apparent as "FEF controls vision-attention" but never tested using TMS & fMRI, but we all know that this kind of research is just of incremental implications.