Decoding contextual influences on auditory perception from primary auditory cortex

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Previous work demonstrated a strong bias in the percept of an ambiguous Shepard tone as either ascending or descending in pitch, depending on the preceding contextual stimulus. The authors recorded human MEG and ferret A1 single-unit activity during presentation of stimuli identical to those used in the behavioral studies. They used multiple neural decoding methods to test if context-dependent neural responses to ambiguous stimulus replicated the behavioral results. Strikingly, a decoder trained to report stimulus pitch produced biases opposite to the perceptual reports. These biases could be explained robustly by a feed-forward adaptation model. Instead, a decoder that took into account direction selectivity of neurons in the population was able to replicate the change in perceptual bias.

Strengths:

This study explores an interesting and important link between neural activity and sensory percepts, and it demonstrates convincingly that traditional neural decoding models cannot explain percepts. Experimental design and data collection appear to have been executed carefully. Subsequent analysis and modeling appear rigorous. The conclusion that traditional decoding models cannot explain the contextual effects on percepts is quite strong.

Weaknesses:

Beyond the very convincing negative results, it is less clear exactly what the conclusion is or what readers should take away from this study. The presentation of the alternative, "direction aware" models is unclear, making it difficult to determine if they are presented as realistic possibilities or simply novel concepts. Does this study make predictions about how information from auditory cortex must be read out by downstream areas? There are several places where the thinking of the authors should be clarified, in particular, around how this idea of specialized readout of direction-selective neurons should be integrated with a broader understanding of auditory cortex.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors aim to better understand the neural responses to Shepard tones in auditory cortex. This is an interesting question as Shepard tones can evoke an ambiguous pitch that is manipulated by a proceeding adapting stimulus, therefore it nicely disentangles pitch perception from simple stimulus acoustics.

The authors use a combination of computational modelling, ferret A1 recordings of single neurons, and human EEG measurements.

Their results provide new insights into neural correlates of these stimuli. However, the manuscript submitted is poorly organized, to the point where it is near impossible to review. We have provided Major Concerns below. We will only be able to understand and critique the manuscript fully after these issues have been addressed to improve the readability of the manuscript. Therefore, we have not yet reviewed the Discussion section.

Major concerns

Organization/presentation
The manuscript is disorganized and therefore difficult to follow. The biggest issue is that in many figures, the figure subpanels often do not correspond to the legend, the main body, or both. Subpanels described in the text are missing in several cases. Many figure axes are unlabelled. There is an inconsistent style of in-text citation between figures and the main text. The manuscript contains typos and grammatical errors. My suggestions for edits below therefore should not be taken as an exhaustive list. I ask the authors to consider the following only a "first pass" review, and I will hopefully be able to think more deeply about the science in the second round of revisions after the manuscript is better organized.

Frequency and pitch
The terms "frequency" and "pitch" seem to be used interchangeably at times, which can lead to major misconceptions in a manuscript on Shepard tones. It is possible that the authors confuse these concepts themselves at times (e.g. Fig 5), although this would be surprising given their expertise in this field. Please check through every use of "frequency" and "pitch" in this manuscript and make sure you are using the right term in the right place. In many places, "frequency" should actually be "fundamental frequency" to avoid misunderstanding.

Insufficient detail or lack of clarity in descriptions
There seems to be insufficient information provided to evaluate parts of these analysis, most critically the final pitch-direction decoder (Fig 6), which is a major finding. Please clarify.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is an elegant study investigating possible mechanisms underlying the hysteresis effect in the perception of perceptually ambiguous Shepard tones. The authors make a fairly convincing case that the adaptation of pitch direction sensitive cells in auditory cortex is likely responsible for this phenomenon.

Strengths:

The manuscript is overall well written. My only slight criticism is that, in places, particularly for non-expert readers, it might be helpful to work a little bit more methods detail into the results section, so readers don't have to work quite so hard jumping from results to methods and back.

The methods seem sound and the conclusions warranted and carefully stated. Overall I would rate the quality of this study as very high, and I do not have any major issues to raise.

Weaknesses:

I think this study is about as good as it can be with the current state of the art. Generally speaking, one has to bear in mind that this is an observational, rather than an interventional study, and therefore only able to identify plausible candidate mechanisms rather than making definitive identifications. However, the study nevertheless represents a significant advance over the current state of knowledge, and about as good as it can be with the techniques that are currently widely available.