Decorrelated Input Dissociates Narrow Band γ Power and BOLD in Human Visual Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although fMRI using the BOLD contrast is widely used for noninvasively mapping hemodynamic brain activity in humans, its exact link to underlying neural processing is poorly understood. Whereas some studies have reported that BOLD signals measured in visual cortex are tightly linked to neural activity in the narrow band γ (NBG) range, others have found a weak correlation between the two. To elucidate the mechanisms behind these conflicting findings, we hypothesized that BOLD reflects the strength of synaptic inputs to cortex, whereas NBG is more dependent on how well these inputs are correlated. To test this, we measured NBG, BOLD, and cerebral blood flow responses to stimuli that either correlate or decorrelate neural activity in human visual cortex. Next, we simulated a recurrent network model of excitatory and inhibitory neurons that reproduced in detail the experimental NBG and BOLD data. Results show that the visually evoked BOLD response was solely predicted by the sum of local inputs, whereas NBG was critically dependent on how well these inputs were correlated. In summary, the NBG-BOLD relationship strongly depends on the nature of sensory input to cortex: stimuli that increase the number of correlated inputs to visual cortex will increase NBG and BOLD in a similar manner, whereas stimuli that increase the number of decorrelated inputs will dissociate the two. The NBG-BOLD relationship is therefore not fixed but is rather highly dependent on input correlations that are both stimulus- and state-dependent. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT It is widely believed that γ oscillations in cortex are tightly linked to local hemodynamic activity. Here, we present experimental evidence showing how a stimulus can increase local blood flow to the brain despite suppressing γ power. Moreover, using a sophisticated model of cortical neurons, it is proposed that this occurs when synaptic input to cortex is strong yet decorrelated. Because input correlations are largely determined by the state of the brain, our results demonstrate that the relationship between γ and local hemodynamics is not fixed, but rather context dependent. This likely explains why certain neurodevelopmental disorders are characterized by weak γ activity despite showing normal blood flow.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".