Institutes
Refine
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
Institute
Event-related potentials (ERPs) are widely used in basic neuroscience and in clinical diagnostic procedures. In contrast, neurophysiological insights from ERPs have been limited, as several different mechanisms lead to ERPs. Apart from stereotypically repeated responses (additive evoked responses), these mechanisms are asymmetric amplitude modulations and phase-resetting of ongoing oscillatory activity. Therefore, a method is needed that differentiates between these mechanisms and moreover quantifies the stability of a response. We propose a constrained subspace independent component analysis that exploits the multivariate information present in the all-to-all relationship of recordings over trials. Our method identifies additive evoked activity and quantifies its stability over trials. We evaluate identification performance for biologically plausible simulation data and two neurophysiological test cases: Local field potential (LFP) recordings from a visuo-motor-integration task in the awake behaving macaque and magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings of steady-state visual evoked fields (SSVEFs). In the LFPs we find additive evoked response contributions in visual areas V2/4 but not in primary motor cortex A4, although visually triggered ERPs were also observed in area A4. MEG-SSVEFs were mainly created by additive evoked response contributions. Our results demonstrate that the identification of additive evoked response contributions is possible both in invasive and in non-invasive electrophysiological recordings.
Individual differences in perception are widespread. Considering inter-individual variability, synesthetes experience stable additional sensations; schizophrenia patients suffer perceptual deficits in, eg, perceptual organization (alongside hallucinations and delusions). Is there a unifying principle explaining inter-individual variability in perception? There is good reason to believe perceptual experience results from inferential processes whereby sensory evidence is weighted by prior knowledge about the world. Perceptual variability may result from different precision weighting of sensory evidence and prior knowledge. We tested this hypothesis by comparing visibility thresholds in a perceptual hysteresis task across medicated schizophrenia patients (N = 20), synesthetes (N = 20), and controls (N = 26). Participants rated the subjective visibility of stimuli embedded in noise while we parametrically manipulated the availability of sensory evidence. Additionally, precise long-term priors in synesthetes were leveraged by presenting either synesthesia-inducing or neutral stimuli. Schizophrenia patients showed increased visibility thresholds, consistent with overreliance on sensory evidence. In contrast, synesthetes exhibited lowered thresholds exclusively for synesthesia-inducing stimuli suggesting high-precision long-term priors. Additionally, in both synesthetes and schizophrenia patients explicit, short-term priors—introduced during the hysteresis experiment—lowered thresholds but did not normalize perception. Our results imply that perceptual variability might result from differences in the precision afforded to prior beliefs and sensory evidence, respectively.
Individual differences in perception are widespread. Considering inter-individual variability, synesthetes experience stable additional sensations; schizophrenia patients suffer perceptual deficits in e.g. perceptual organization (alongside hallucinations and delusions). Is there a unifying principle explaining inter-individual variability in perception? There is good reason to believe perceptual experience results from inferential processes whereby sensory evidence is weighted by prior knowledge about the world. Different perceptual phenotypes may result from different precision weighting of sensory evidence and prior knowledge. We tested this hypothesis by comparing visibility thresholds in a perceptual hysteresis task across medicated schizophrenia patients, synesthetes, and controls. Participants rated the subjective visibility of stimuli embedded in noise while we parametrically manipulated the availability of sensory evidence. Additionally, precise long-term priors in synesthetes were leveraged by presenting either synesthesia-inducing or neutral stimuli. Schizophrenia patients showed increased visibility thresholds, consistent with overreliance on sensory evidence. In contrast, synesthetes exhibited lowered thresholds exclusively for synesthesia-inducing stimuli suggesting high-precision long-term priors. Additionally, in both synesthetes and schizophrenia patients explicit, short-term priors – introduced during the hysteresis experiment – lowered thresholds but did not normalize perception. Our results imply that distinct perceptual phenotypes might result from differences in the precision afforded to prior beliefs and sensory evidence, respectively.
Cross-frequency coupling (CFC) has been proposed to coordinate neural dynamics across spatial and temporal scales. Despite its potential relevance for understanding healthy and pathological brain function, the standard CFC analysis and physiological interpretation come with fundamental problems. For example, apparent CFC can appear because of spectral correlations due to common non-stationarities that may arise in the total absence of interactions between neural frequency components. To provide a road map towards an improved mechanistic understanding of CFC, we organize the available and potential novel statistical/modeling approaches according to their biophysical interpretability. While we do not provide solutions for all the problems described, we provide a list of practical recommendations to avoid common errors and to enhance the interpretability of CFC analysis.