High-Resolution Laminar Identification in Macaque Primary Visual Cortex Using Neuropixels Probes

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Zhang et al., presented an electrophysiology method to identify the layers of macaque visual cortex with high density Neuropixels 1.0 electrode. They found several electrophysiology signal profiles for high-resolution laminar discrimination and described a set of signal metrics for fine cortical layer identification.

Strengths:

There are two major strengths. One is the use of high density electrodes. The Neuropixels 1.0 probe has 20 um spacing electrodes, which can provide high resolution for cortical laminar identification. The second strength is the analysis. They found multiple electrophysiology signal profiles which can be used for laminar discrimination. Using this new method, they could identify the most thin layer in macaque V1. The data support their conclusion.

Weaknesses:

While this electrophysiology strategy is much easier to perform even in awake animals compared to histological staining methods, it provides an indirect estimation of cortical layers. A parallel histological study can provide a direct matching between the electrode signal features and cortical laminar locations. However, there are technical challenges, for example the distortions in both electrode penetration and tissue preparation may prevent a precise matching between electrode locations and cortical layers. In this case, additional micro wires electrodes binding with Neuropixels probe can be used to inject current and mark the locations of different depths in cortical tissue after recording.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper documents an attempt to accurately determine the locations and boundaries of the anatomically and functionally defined layers in macaque primary visual cortex using voltage signals recorded from a high-density electrode array that spans the full depth of cortex with contacts at 20 um spacing. First, the authors attempt to use current source density (CSD) analysis to determine layer locations, but they report a striking failure because the results vary greatly from one electrode penetration to the next and because the spatial resolution of the underlying local field potential (LFP) signal is coarse compared to the electrical contact spacing. The authors thus turn to examining higher frequency signals related to action potentials and provide evidence that these signals reflect changes in neuronal size and packing density, response latency and visual selectivity.

Strengths:

There is a lot of nice data to look at in this paper that shows interesting quantities as a function of depth in V1. Bringing all of these together offers the reader a rich data set: CSD, action potential shape, response power and coherence spectrum, and post-stimulus time response traces. Furthermore, data are displayed as a function of eye (dominant or non-dominant) and for achromatic and cone-isolating stimuli.

This paper takes a strong stand in pointing out weaknesses in the ability of CSD analysis to make consistent determinations about cortical layering in V1. Many researchers have found CSD to be problematic, and the observations here may be important to motivate other researchers to carry out rigorous comparisons and publish their results, even if they reflect negatively on the value of CSD analysis.

The paper provides a thoughtful, practical and comprehensive recipe for assigning traditional cortical layers based on easily-computed metrics from electophysiological recordings in V1, and this is likely to be useful for electrophysiologists who are now more frequently using high-density electrode arrays.

Weaknesses:

Much effort is spent pointing out features that are well known, for example, the latency difference associated with different retinogeniculate pathways, the activity level differences associated with input layers, and the action potential shape differences associated with white vs. gray matter. These have been used for decades as indicators of depth and location of recordings in visual cortex as electrodes were carefully advanced. High density electrodes allow this type of data to now be collected in parallel, but at discrete, regular sampling points. Rather than showing examples of what is already accepted, the emphasis should be placed on developing a rigorous analysis of how variable vs. reproducible are quantitative metrics of these features across penetrations, as a function of distance or functional domain, and from animal to animal. Ultimately, a more quantitative approach to the question of consistency is needed to assess the value of the methods proposed here.

Another important piece of information for assessing the ability to determine layers from spiking activity is to carry out post-mortem histological processing so that the layer determination made in this paper could be compared to anatomical layering.

On line 162, the text states that there is a clear lack of consistency across penetrations, but why should there be consistency: how far apart in the cortex were the penetrations? How long were the electrodes allowed to settle before recording, how much damage was done to tissue during insertion? Do you have data taken over time - how consistent is the pattern across several hours, and how long was the time between the collection of the penetrations shown here?

The impact of the paper is lessened because it emphasizes consistency but not in a consistent manner. Some demonstrations of consistency are shown for CSDs, but not quantified. Figure 4A is used to make a point about consistency in cell density, but across animals, whereas the previous text was pointing out inconsistency across penetrations. What if you took a 40 or 60 um column of tissue and computed cell density, then you would be comparing consistency across potentially similar scales. Overall, it is not clear how all of these different metrics compare quantitatively to each other in terms of consistency.

In many places, the text makes assertions that A is a consistent indicator of B, but then there appear to be clear counterexamples in the data shown in the figures. There is some sense that the reasoning is relying too much on examples, and not enough on statistical quantities.

Overall

Overall, this paper makes a solid argument in favor of using action potentials and stimulus driven responses, instead of CSD measurements, to assign cortical layers to electrode contacts in V1. It is nice to look at the data in this paper and to read the authors' highly educated interpretation and speculation about how useful such measurements will be in general to make layer assignments. It is easy to agree with much of what they say, and to hope that in the future there will be reliable, quantitative methods to make meaningful segmentations of neurons in terms of their differentiated roles in cortical computation. How much this will end up corresponding to the canonical layer numbering that has been used for many decades now remains unclear.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Zhang et al. explored strategies for aligning electrophysiological recordings from high-density laminar electrode arrays (Neuropixels) with the pattern of lamination across cortical depth in macaque primary visual cortex (V1), with the goal of improving the spatial resolution of layer identification based on electrophysiological signals alone. The authors compare the current commonly used standard in the field - current source density (CSD) analysis - with a new set of measures largely derived from action potential (AP) frequency band signals. Individual AP band measures provide distinct cues about different landmarks or potential laminar boundaries, and together they are used to subdivide the spatial extent of array recordings into discrete layers, including the very thin layer 4A, a level of resolution unavailable when relying on CSD analysis alone for laminar identification. The authors compare the widths of the resulting subdivisions with previously reported anatomical measurements as evidence that layers have been accurately identified. This is a bit circular, given that they also use these anatomical measurements as guidelines limiting the boundary assignments; however, the strategy is overall sensible and the electrophysiological signatures used to identify layers are generally convincing. Furthermore, by varying the pattern of visual stimulation to target chromatically sensitive inputs known to be partially segregated by layer in V1, they show localized response patterns that lend confidence to their identification of particular sublayers.

The authors compellingly demonstrate the insufficiency of CSD analysis for precisely identifying fine laminar structure, and in some cases its limited accuracy at identifying coarse structure. CSD analysis produced inconsistent results across array penetrations and across visual stimulus conditions and was not improved in spatial resolution by sampling at high density with Neuropixels probes. Instead, in order to generate a typical, informative pattern of current sources and sinks across layers, the LFP signals from the Neuropixels arrays required spatial smoothing or subsampling to approximately match the coarser (50-100 µm) spacing of other laminar arrays. Even with smoothing, the resulting CSDs in some cases predicted laminar boundaries that were inconsistent with boundaries estimated using other measures and/or unlikely given the typical sizes of individual layers in macaque V1. This point alone provides an important insight for others seeking to link their own laminar array recordings to cortical layers.

They next offer a set of measures based on analysis of AP band signals. These measures include analyses of the density, average signal spread, and spike waveforms of single- and multi-units identified through spike sorting, as well as analyses of AP band power spectra and local coherence profiles across recording depth. The power spectrum measures in particular yield compact peaks at particular depths, albeit with some variation across penetrations, whereas the waveform measures most convincingly identified the layer 6-white matter transition. In general, some of the new measures yield inconsistent patterns across penetrations, and some of the authors' explanations of these analyses draw intriguing but rather speculative connections to properties of anatomy and/or responsivity. However, taken as a group, the set of AP band analyses appear sufficient to determine the layer 6-white matter transition with precision and to delineate intermediate transition points likely to correspond to actual layer boundaries.

Strengths:

The authors convincingly demonstrate the potential to resolve putative laminar boundaries using only electrophysiological recordings from Neuropixels arrays. This is particularly useful given that histological information is often unavailable for chronic recordings. They make a clear case that CSD analysis is insufficient to resolve the lamination pattern with the desired precision and offer a thoughtful set of alternative analyses, along with an order in which to consider multiple cues in order to facilitate others' adoption of the strategy. The widths of the resulting layers bear a sensible resemblance to the expected widths identified by prior anatomical measurements, and at least in some cases there are satisfying signatures of chromatic visual sensitivity and latency differences across layers that are predicted by the known connectivity of the corresponding layers. Thus, the proposed analytical toolkit appears to work well for macaque V1 and has strong potential to generalize to use in other cortical regions, though area-targeted selection of stimuli may be required.

Weaknesses:

The waveform measures, and in particular the unit density distribution, are likely to be sensitive to the criteria used for spike sorting, which differ widely among experimenters/groups, and this may limit the usefulness of this particular measure for others in the community. The analysis of detected unit density yields fluctuations across cortical depth which the authors attribute to variations in neural density across layers; however, these patterns seemed particularly variable across penetrations and did not consistently yield peaks at depths that should have high neuronal density, such as layer 2. Therefore, this measure has limited interpretability.

More generally, although the sizes of identified layers comport with typical sizes identified anatomically, a more powerful confirmation would be a direct per-penetration comparison with histologically identified boundaries. Ultimately, the absence of this type of independent confirmation limits the strength of their claim that veridical laminar boundaries can be identified from electrophysiological signals alone.