MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286009098 · doi:10.1101/2022.07.18.500417

Visual stimuli modulate local field potentials but drive no high-frequency activity in human auditory cortex

2022· preprint· en· W4286009098 on OpenAlexaff
Jyrki Ahveninen, Hsin-Ju Lee, Hsiang‐Yu Yu, Cheng‐Chia Lee, Chien‐Chen Chou, Seppo P. Ahlfors, Wen‐Jui Kuo, Iiro P. Jääskeläinen, Fa‐Hsuan Lin, Significance Statement

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersRussian Science Foundation
KeywordsSensory systemNeuroscienceElectroencephalographySensory processingPsychologyAuditory cortexHuman brainNeuroimagingMagnetoencephalographyVisual cortexNeurophysiologyElectrophysiologyAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Neuroimaging studies suggest cross-sensory visual influences in human auditory cortices. Whether these influences reflect active visual processing in human auditory cortices (ACs), which drives neuronal firing and concurrent broadband high-frequency activity (BHFA; >70 Hz), or whether they merely modulate sound processing is still debatable. Here, we presented auditory, visual, and audiovisual stimuli to 16 participants (7 women, 9 men) with stereo-EEG depth electrodes implanted near ACs for presurgical monitoring. Anatomically normalized group analyses were facilitated by inverse modeling of intracranial source currents. Analyses of intracranial event-related potentials (iERP) suggested cross-sensory responses to visual stimuli in ACs, which lagged the earliest auditory responses by several tens of milliseconds. Visual stimuli also modulated the phase of intrinsic low-frequency oscillations and triggered 15–30-Hz event-related desynchronization in ACs. However, BHFA, a putative correlate of neuronal firing, was not significantly increased in ACs after visual stimuli, not even when they coincided with auditory stimuli. Intracranial recordings demonstrate cross-sensory modulations, but no indication of active visual processing in human ACs. Significance Statement Visual information has a profound influence on auditory processing, particularly in noisy conditions. These “cross-sensory” influences start already in auditory cortices, the brain area that processes sound signals. It has, however, been unclear whether auditory cortex actively processes visual information or whether visual signals only change the way sounds are processed. We studied this question by neurophysiological recordings from 16 participants with epilepsy who had electrodes implanted in their brains due to medical reasons. Using these intracranial recordings, we show that cross-sensory visual information modulates sound processing but triggers no high-frequency activity -- a correlate of local neuronal firing -- in auditory cortex. This result provides important information on the role of sensory areas in multisensory processing in the human brain.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207