Kajikawa Yoshinao, Smiley John F, Schroeder Charles E
Translational Neuroscience Division, Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, New York 10962,
Cognitive Science and Neuromodulation Program, Department Neurosurgery, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, and.
J Neurosci. 2017 Oct 18;37(42):10139-10153. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3800-16.2017. Epub 2017 Sep 18.
Prior studies have reported "local" field potential (LFP) responses to faces in the macaque auditory cortex and have suggested that such face-LFPs may be substrates of audiovisual integration. However, although field potentials (FPs) may reflect the synaptic currents of neurons near the recording electrode, due to the use of a distant reference electrode, they often reflect those of synaptic activity occurring in distant sites as well. Thus, FP recordings within a given brain region (e.g., auditory cortex) may be "contaminated" by activity generated elsewhere in the brain. To determine whether face responses are indeed generated within macaque auditory cortex, we recorded FPs and concomitant multiunit activity with linear array multielectrodes across auditory cortex in three macaques (one female), and applied current source density (CSD) analysis to the laminar FP profile. CSD analysis revealed no appreciable local generator contribution to the visual FP in auditory cortex, although we did note an increase in the amplitude of visual FP with cortical depth, suggesting that their generators are located below auditory cortex. In the underlying inferotemporal cortex, we found polarity inversions of the main visual FP components accompanied by robust CSD responses and large-amplitude multiunit activity. These results indicate that face-evoked FP responses in auditory cortex are not generated locally but are volume-conducted from other face-responsive regions. In broader terms, our results underscore the caution that, unless far-field contamination is removed, LFPs in general may reflect such "far-field" activity, in addition to, or in absence of, local synaptic responses. Field potentials (FPs) can index neuronal population activity that is not evident in action potentials. However, due to volume conduction, FPs may reflect activity in distant neurons superimposed upon that of neurons close to the recording electrode. This is problematic as the default assumption is that FPs originate from local activity, and thus are termed "local" (LFP). We examine this general problem in the context of previously reported face-evoked FPs in macaque auditory cortex. Our findings suggest that face-FPs are indeed generated in the underlying inferotemporal cortex and volume-conducted to the auditory cortex. The note of caution raised by these findings is of particular importance for studies that seek to assign FP/LFP recordings to specific cortical layers.
先前的研究报告了猕猴听觉皮层对面孔的“局部”场电位(LFP)反应,并表明这种面孔LFP可能是视听整合的基础。然而,尽管场电位(FP)可能反映记录电极附近神经元的突触电流,但由于使用了远处的参考电极,它们通常也反映远处部位发生的突触活动。因此,给定脑区(如听觉皮层)内的FP记录可能会被大脑其他部位产生的活动“污染”。为了确定面孔反应是否确实在猕猴听觉皮层内产生,我们用线性阵列多电极记录了三只猕猴(一只雌性)听觉皮层的FP和伴随的多单元活动,并对层状FP分布应用电流源密度(CSD)分析。CSD分析显示,听觉皮层中视觉FP没有明显的局部发生器贡献,尽管我们确实注意到视觉FP的幅度随皮层深度增加,这表明它们的发生器位于听觉皮层下方。在下面的颞下皮层,我们发现主要视觉FP成分的极性反转,伴随着强烈的CSD反应和大幅度的多单元活动。这些结果表明,听觉皮层中面孔诱发的FP反应不是在局部产生的,而是从其他对面孔有反应的区域经容积传导而来。从更广泛的意义上说,我们的结果强调了这样一个警示,即除非去除远场污染,一般来说,LFP除了反映局部突触反应外,还可能反映这种“远场”活动,或者在没有局部突触反应时反映这种活动。场电位(FP)可以指示在动作电位中不明显的神经元群体活动。然而,由于容积传导,FP可能反映远处神经元的活动叠加在靠近记录电极的神经元活动之上。这是个问题,因为默认的假设是FP起源于局部活动,并因此被称为“局部”(LFP)。我们在先前报道的猕猴听觉皮层面孔诱发的FP背景下研究了这个普遍问题。我们的研究结果表明,面孔FP确实在下面的颞下皮层产生,并经容积传导至听觉皮层。这些发现所提出的警示对于试图将FP/LFP记录分配到特定皮层层的研究尤为重要。