Abstract

Population receptive field (pRF) modeling is a popular fMRI method to map the retinotopic organization of the human brain. While fMRI-based pRF maps are qualitatively similar to invasively recorded single-cell receptive fields in animals, it remains unclear what neuronal signal they represent. We addressed this question in awake nonhuman primates comparing whole-brain fMRI and large-scale neurophysiological recordings in areas V1 and V4 of the visual cortex. We examined the fits of several pRF models based on the fMRI blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal, multi-unit spiking activity (MUA), and local field potential (LFP) power in different frequency bands. We found that pRFs derived from BOLD-fMRI were most similar to MUA-pRFs in V1 and V4, while pRFs based on LFP gamma power also gave a good approximation. fMRI-based pRFs thus reliably reflect neuronal receptive field properties in the primate brain. In addition to our results in V1 and V4, the whole-brain fMRI measurements revealed retinotopic tuning in many other cortical and subcortical areas with a consistent increase in pRF size with increasing eccentricity, as well as a retinotopically specific deactivation of default mode network nodes similar to previous observations in humans.

Highlights

  • 55 The concept of a receptive field (RF) is crucial for our understanding of the mechanisms underlying perception, cognition, and action

  • In our analysis of population receptive field’ (pRF) based on blood-oxygen-level-dependent signal (BOLD), multi-unit spiking activity (MUA) and local field potential (LFP), we explored several pRF models, allowing us to investigate the potential presence of nonlinear spatial summation and negative pRFs

  • Our comparison of fMRI with large-scale neurophysiological recordings in visual cortex revealed that pRFs derived from the BOLD signal resemble MUA RFs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

55 The concept of a receptive field (RF) is crucial for our understanding of the mechanisms underlying perception, cognition, and action. The method is popular and has been used to map a range of visual and cognitive functions (Binda et al, 2018; Ekman et al, 2020; Harvey et al, 2020, 2015; He et al, 2019; Hughes et al, 2019; Mo et al., 2017; Poltoratski et al, 2019; Poltoratski and Tong, 2020; Puckett et al, 2020; Shao et al, 2013; Shen et al., 2020; Silson et al, 2018; Stoll et al, 2020; Thomas et al, 2015; Welbourne et al, 2018; Zuiderbaan et al, 2017), dysfunctions (Ahmadi et al, 2020; Alvarez et al, 2020; Best et al, 2019; Dumoulin and Knapen, 2018; Green et al, 2019; Schwarzkopf et al, 2014), mechanisms of brain development (Dekker et al, 2019), cortical evolution (Keliris et al, 2019; Kolster et al, 2014; Zhu and Vanduffel, 2019), and information transfer across different brain areas (Haak et al, 2013)

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call