1 Department of Health Sciences, Physical Therapy Program, College of Mount St Joseph, Cincinnati, OH 45233, USA, 2 Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, USA
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key Words: association cortex, field AES, GABA, multisensory, SIV, superior colliculus
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The anterior ectosylvian sulcus (AES) is one of but a few cortical locations that hosts adjoining representations of the auditory and somatosensory modalities and because the probability of connectivity increases with physical proximity (Young et al., 1995), this area seemed well suited for investigating potential cross-modal connections between these sensory modalities. The AES, as depicted in Figure 1, is found at the junction of the frontal, parietal and temporal regions of the cat cortex and is composed of a horizontal (anterior) limb and a vertical (posterior) limb. Within the dorsal bank of the horizontal limb, there is a representation of the body surface identified as somatosensory area SIV (Clemo and Stein, 1982
, 1983, 1984). Receptive field reversals and cytoarchitectonic differences distinguish SIV from SII on the adjacent anterior ectosylvian gyrus (Burton et al., 1982
; Clemo and Stein, 1983
). To its medial/deep side, SIV transitions into an area of the AES fundus termed para-SIV, where neurons have somatosensory receptive fields that are not topographically arranged, expand to include hemi-body and whole-body representations, and exhibit multisensory responses (Clemo and Stein, 1983
). Posterior to SIV the somatosensory representation transitions into the auditory field AES (FAES) (Clarey and Irvine, 1986
, 1990a,b; Meredith and Clemo, 1989
; Wallace et al., 1992
, 1993; Korte and Rauschecker, 1993
; Rauschecker and Korte, 1993
; Middlebrooks et al., 1994
; Rauschecker, 1995
, 1996; Benedek et al., 1996
). The FAES occupies the anterior and posterior banks of the vertical limb of the AES and is distinguished from both the anterior auditory field and AI by its lack of tonotopic organization, the presence of neurons broadly tuned for sound frequency (Clarey and Irvine, 1986
; Korte and Rauschecker, 1993
; Rauschecker and Korte, 1993
; Middlebrooks et al., 1994
; Rauschecker, 1996
) and the sensitivity to the spatial features of auditory cues (Korte and Rauschecker, 1993
; Rauschecker and Korte, 1993
; Middlebrooks et al., 1994
; Nelken et al., 1997
). Of these two regions of the AES, SIV is perhaps the best understood because it contains a topographic map of the body surface, connects heavily to other somatosensory cortices and exhibits distinct cytoarchitectonic properties. Therefore, the somatosensory SIV cortex was selected to test the possibility that it receives cross-modal inputs from the adjacent auditory FAES and, if so, to assess the functional nature of that connection.
|
![]() |
Materials and Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Anatomical Studies
Surgical Preparation
Cats (n = 9) were anesthetized with sodium pentobarbital and their heads placed in a stereotaxic frame. Under aseptic surgical conditions, a craniotomy and durectomy were performed to expose the AES cortex. In two of four cases in which retrograde tracers were injected into SIV, standard extracellular recording techniques were used to map the extent of SIV, as described elsewhere (see Clemo and Stein, 1983). To make tracer injections, a modified electrode carrier was used to support a 5 µl Hamilton syringe and its needle (31 gauge). For injections into SIV, the carrier was angled 5060° with a 90° cant (lateral to medial) and the needle tip was inserted 2.02.5 mm into the dorsal bank of the AES. For injections into FAES, the carrier was angled 5360° (from vertical), with 3540° cant (posterior from coronal plane) and the needle tip was inserted at a point 0.81.5 mm anterior to the vertical limb of the AES to a depth of 5.255.70 mm. After a 5 min pause, horseradish peroxidase (HRP; 20% in sterile saline; 125425 nl total volume) or biotinylated dextran amine (BDA; 10 000 mol. wt, lysine fixable, 10% in 0.1 M phosphate buffer, 345700,nl) was pressure injected at a rate of 15 nl/min. The needle was then retracted, the cortex was covered with gel foam, the skin around the wound sutured closed and standard postoperative care was provided.
Histological Processing
After a 24 h survival period, the animals injected with HRP were given a barbiturate overdose and perfused intracardially with heparinized saline followed by fixative (1.0% paraformaldehyde, 1.25% glutaraldehyde solution). The brain was blocked stereotaxically, removed and refrigerated overnight in 0.1 M phosphate buffer. Serial, coronal sections (50 µm thick) were cut using a vibrating microtome. One series of sections, at 200 µm intervals, was reacted using a standard diaminobenzidine (DAB) procedure to demonstrate the zone of maximal uptake around the injection site (LaVail and LaVail, 1974). A second series of sections, at 100 µm intervals, was processed using tetramethylbenzidine (TMB; Mesulam, 1978
) in conjunction with nickelcobalt intensification. Standard procedures were used to mount, counterstain and coverslip the tissue.
For animals that received BDA injections there was a 714 day post-injection survival period before they were given a barbiturate overdose and perfused intracardially with heparinized saline followed by fixative (4.0% paraformaldehyde, 0.5% glutaraldehyde solution). The brain was blocked stereotaxically, removed and stored in 0.1 M phosphate buffer with 25% sucrose (for cryoprotection) at 4°C until the tissue sank. Coronal sections (50 µm thick) were cut using a freezing microtome and collected serially. One series of sections, at 200250 µm intervals, was processed for visualization of BDA using the avidinbiotin peroxidase method, according to the protocol of Veenman et al. (1992) and then intensified using silver nitrate (1.42% at 56°C) and gold chloride (0.2% at room temperature). The sections were mounted and coverslipped without counterstain. An additional series of sections, taken at 200250 µm intervals, was counterstained using a standard cresyl violet protocol to assist in cytoarchitectonic and laminar identification.
Data Analysis
Neuronal labeling was visualized using a light microscope (Nikon Optiphot-2) and the data plotted using a PC-driven digitizing stage controlled by Neurolucida software (MicroBrightField Inc.). A calibrated tracing of each section outline with the border between gray and white matter, the position of the injection site, labeled neurons and axon terminals was produced. Injection sites were defined as the large aggregate of densely labeled cell bodies, dendrites and axons at the terminus of the injection needle track. HRP-labeled neurons were identified by the presence of dense black beads within the cytoplasm of the soma and proximal dendrites. BDA-labeled neurons were sharply black throughout their soma which sometimes spread into the distal dendrites, although some reactive neurons revealed a lighter, reddish-brown label. BDA-labeled axon terminals appeared as sharp, black swellings at the end of thin axon stalks or as symmetrical varicosities along the course of an axon.
Tissue outlines and injection sites were plotted at 40x magnification. Labeled neurons and boutons were plotted at 200x magnification and the Neurolucida software kept a count of numbers of identified neurons and boutons. Labeled cell bodies were plotted in the region of the posterior AES cortex. The average diameter was determined by measuring the longest and shortest widths that passed through the cell center, and dividing by two. A shrinkage factor of 7.5% was then applied, as determined by the average difference in tissue area measured before and after processing. Labeled boutons were plotted within the anterior and middle AES cortex, in regions corresponding to that of SIV and para-SIV.
Once the locations of labeled neurons/boutons were plotted for a given section, the cortical laminae were traced from an adjacent, cresyl-violet-stained section and imported back to the digitized plot. The software then calculated the number of labeled neurons or boutons in supragranular (above layer IV), granular (layer IV) and infragranular (below layer IV) locations for a specific area of tissue. The number of granular, supragranular and infragranular boutons was compiled for each case and the ratios of boutons in each laminar region were calculated.
Physiological Studies
Surgical Procedures
Acute (n = 5) as well as chronic preparations (n = 6) were used because, at the initiation of this portion of the study, it was not known which anesthetic would best permit recordings from these cortical areas. Both surgical procedures were essentially the same, but asepsis was maintained for animals scheduled to recover from the surgery. Animals were anesthetized (acute = isoflurane, n = 3; pentobarbital, n = 2) (chronic = sodium pentobarbital, n = 6) and their heads were placed in a stereotaxic frame. The animals were intubated through the mouth and artificially ventilated. Expiratory carbon dioxide levels were monitored and kept to within 4.04.5%. A heating pad was used to maintain temperature, monitored rectally, at 37°C. An intravenous line was placed in the saphenous vein to administer additional medications, fluids and, if appropriate, supplemental anesthesia.
A craniotomy was performed to expose the cortex around the AES. A stainless steel recording well (14 mm inner diameter) was placed over the opening for recording access to SIV in the chronic experiments, as well as to support the animals head without obstructing the eyes, ears or face. Stimulating electrodes (parylene coated tungsten, <1 M, two rows 1 mm apart, four electrodes in each row at 1 mm spacing, angled 4550°) were implanted in FAES to a depth 6.27.2 mm from the surface of the middle ectosylvian gyrus (MEG). Additionally, control electrodes were positioned either in other auditory (AI, nine cases) or somatosensory (SV, two cases) cortices. Implanted electrodes were banked with gel foam and secured in place with dental acrylic. For chronically implanted animals, the scalp was sutured closed around the implant, routine postoperative analgesic and antibiotic care was provided, and
57 days elapsed before the initial recording experiment. The acute preparations were moved immediately into the recording phase.
SIV Recording
For chronically prepared animals, recording experiments were conducted in a fashion similar to that described in detail in Meredith and Stein (1986, 1996). Briefly, recording was initiated by anesthetizing the animal (ketamine/acepromazine, n = 3; isoflurane, n = 3) and securing the implant to a supporting bar. These animals, as well as the acutely prepared ones, were intubated and ventilated. The saphenous vein was cannulated for administration of fluids and supplemental anesthetics, as needed. Each of the implanted stimulating electrodes was connected, through a stimulation isolation unit (Grass SIU-5), to a Grass stimulator (S-88). For recording, a glass insulated tungsten electrode (tip exposure < 20 µm, impedance < 1.0 M
) was supported by a 16 gauge steel cannula which, in turn, was guided by the XY slide (10 mm A-P/M-L excursion; Kopf Instruments) that covered the well. In acute preparations, no cannula was used and the recording electrode was inserted at a 4050° lateralmedial angle directly through the craniotomy.
In both preparations, neuronal activity was amplified, displayed on an oscilloscope and played on an audiomonitor. Neurons were first identified by their responses to manually presented stimuli: somatosensory (puffs of air through a pipette, brush strokes and taps, manual pressure and joint movement); auditory (claps, clicks, whistles and hisses); visual (flashed or moving spots or bars of light from a hand held ophthalmoscope projected onto the translucent hemisphere and dark stimuli from a rectangular piece of black cardboard). In addition, a neurons somatosensory receptor type (hair, skin, deep or joint) was determined and its receptive field was mapped. Next, to assess whether a neuron received excitatory (orthodromic) input from the FAES, each FAES electrode (and control AI or SV electrode) was individually activated (1 anodal pulse, 0.1 ms duration, 500600 mA current intensity, 35 iterations) in a fashion identical to that used in our previous studies (Clemo and Stein, 1984; Wallace et al., 1993
; Meredith, 1999
).
SIV Sensory Tests
To determine whether somatosensory responses of SIV neurons were influenced by auditory stimuli or auditory FAES activation, somatosensory stimuli were presented within a neurons receptive field alone and then in combination with a natural auditory cue or with electrical stimulation through one of the FAES electrodes. Somatosensory stimuli were produced by a narrow (3 mm diameter) metal shaft moved by an electronically driven, modified shaker (Ling 102A) as described in previous studies (Clemo and Stein, 1984; Meredith and Stein, 1986
, 1996). Free-field auditory cues were electronically generated white noise bursts, 100 ms duration, 5470 dB SPL on A level. This stimulus was delivered through a speaker, mounted on 18'' diameter hoop [as also described in previous studies (Meredith and Stein, 1986
, 1996)] and was positioned to be in spatial register with the somatosensory receptive field. During combined sensory presentations, the onsets of the stimuli were adjusted to compensate for the differences in the average latency of auditory and somatosensory responses in AES cortex [somatosensory evoked responses
15 ms later than auditory (Wallace et al., 1992
)]. FAES activation was effected by electrical stimulation delivered through an indwelling FAES electrode (trains of pulses at 25250 Hz, 80100 ms duration, 0.1 ms/pulse, 37600 µA anodal current intensity). Separate and combined modes of stimulation were interleaved to compensate for possible shifts in baseline activity. When somatosensory and electrical stimuli were combined, the electrical activation of FAES preceded the somatosensory stimulus by 85100 ms to avoid interference between stimulation artifact and neuronal action potentials. An interstimulus interval of 10 s was employed to avoid habituation; each test was repeated 1014 times. Neuronal activity was digitized (rate > 25 kHz) using Spike2 (Cambridge Electronic Design) software and stored for off-line analysis.
Data Analysis
Off-line analysis consisted of using Spike2 software to examine data files and, within each file, only reliably isolated waveforms were subjected to further analysis. For a given spike waveform, the file was collated according to the testing conditions and a perstimulus-time histogram was constructed for each. From these histograms, the duration of a response was determined and the mean spike number per response (and standard deviation) was calculated over that period. Responses to the combined stimuli were statistically compared (paired t-test, P < 0.05) to that of the most effective single stimulus, and responses which showed a significant difference were defined as response interactions (Meredith and Stein, 1983, 1986, 1996; Wallace et al., 1992
). In addition, the magnitude of a response interaction was determined by the following formula: C T/T x 100 = %, where C is the response to the combined stimulus, and T is the response to the tactile stimulus alone (Meredith and Stein, 1983
, 1986, 1996).
Histological Procedures
The depth of each identified neuron within a penetration was noted and recorded. Several recording penetrations were often performed in a single experiment and each successful recording penetration was marked, at its conclusion, with a small electrolytic lesion (0.51.0 mA for 0.52.0 s). At the conclusion of an acute experiment, or after a series of experiments using a chronically-prepared animal, the animal was given a barbiturate overdose and perfused with physiological saline followed by 10% formalin. The brain was removed, frozen sections (50 µm) were cut in the coronal plane through the recording and stimulation sites, processed using standard histological procedures and counterstained with cresyl violet. A projecting microscope (Bausch & Lomb) was used to trace sections and to reconstruct stimulating electrode positions, recording penetrations and the locations of examined neurons from the lesion sites. Gyral/sulcal patterns, cytoarchitectonic characteristics and observed physiological properties were used to demarcate the relevant functional cortical subdivisions. These anatomical data were then tabulated with the physiological observations (described above).
In Vitro Slice Recordings
These procedures were essentially the same as reported previously (Meredith and Ramoa, 1998). Two animals were deeply anesthetized and, immediately prior to euthanasia, their AES cortex was exposed and surgically removed en bloc. This tissue was immediately submerged in 5°C modified (sodium free, 10 mM glucose) Ringers solution. Parasagittal sections 400 µm thick through the AES were taken using a Vibratome. Slices were transferred to an interface-type recording chamber where extracellular multiunit recordings were made using glass-insulated tungsten electrodes (
1 M
at 1 KHz, tip exposure <20 µm). Once a neuron was isolated, its electrical activity was amplified, routed to an oscilloscope and audiomonitor, and stored on tape. Next, a site within the same column as the recording electrode, or a location anterior or posterior was stimulated electrically (concentric bipolar electrode, 250 µm diameter, 0.1 ms duration, 600 µA maximal stimulus intensity) and unit activity was recorded in response to 50 stimulus iterations (23 s interstimulus interval). Whether a neuronal response was observed or not, the same stimulation paradigm was repeated after the local administration (picospritzed) of bicuculline methiodide (BIC; 50 µM), the co-administration (through two separate picospritzing pipettes) of BIC and D-2-amino-5-phosphonovaleric acid (d-APV; 40 µM) and then the co-administration of BIC with 6-nitro-7-sulphamoylbeno(f)-quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX; 10 µM). Following each experiment, the taped data was transferred to a computer and the activity of each neuron was analyzed quantitatively (Spike2 software) for its response to electrical stimulation of another region of the slice, whether that response was enhanced by the presence of the inhibitory antagonist BIC, and whether that enhancement could be diminished by the presence of the excitatory antagonists, d-APV and NBQX. Data from the population of neurons sampled was tabulated to assess the general pattern of response to the different treatments.
Microiontophoresis and Recording
Two animals were prepared chronically for recording in the manner described above (see Physiological Studies: Surgical Procedures). On the day of the experiment, each animal was anesthetized (ketamine/acepromazine) and, after the recording well was opened, the dura was reflected to admit the microiontophoresis pipette/electrode assembly. The assembly was constructed from a standard glass insulated recording electrode (impedance 0.61M), to which was glued (cyanoacrylic, supported by dental acrylic) a double-barreled pipette (4'' long, 1.5 mm OD capillary glass with microfilament; A-M Systems) with tips pulled and trimmed to reveal an internal diameter opening of
10 µm. The pipette tips were positioned, using a dissection microscope and a pair of micropositioners, within
4050 µm of the electrode tip. Approximately 30 min prior to use, a fine needle was used to fill one barrel of the pipette with BIC (10 mM, pH 3.5) while the other received normal saline. The assembly was supported by a stereotaxic carrier. Each barrel of the pipette was attached, via a deeply inserted silver wire, to a separate channel of a microiontophoresis current programmer (WPI model 260). For the barrel containing BIC, the current programmer generated a negative holding current of 1520 nA, while a positive current of the same value was delivered through the saline channel to balance the net current flow. Once a neuron was identified, its activity was amplified and stored in the manner described above (see SIV Recording) and the following battery of tests (same as described in SIV Sensory Tests, above) was presented. Either the somatosensory probe was used to stimulate the neurons receptive field, or an electrical current (100600 mA, 0.1 ms pulse duration; 100 Hz for 100 ms) was passed through one of the indwelling FAES stimulating electrodes, or the two forms of stimulation were combined in an interleaved fashion (10 repetitions) with 100 ms separating the onsets of the combined stimuli. This stimulation paradigm was presented first prior to the ejection of BIC, then immediately after its iontophoresis into the tissue (ejection current was positive 2050 nA, continuous for 35 min, balanced by a negative current of the same magnitude through the saline channel) and then at regular intervals afterward until the effects of the BIC were no longer apparent. Neuronal activity was collected using Spike2 and analyzed offline using custom software (L. Keniston). This analysis calculated neuronal responses (mean and standard deviation of spikes/response) to somatosensory (alone) and somatosensory with FAES stimulation (combined) and then compared responses for pre-ejection, immediate post-BIC ejection and recovery periods to establish (i) if the somatosensory response was significantly suppressed by the FAES-stimulation, (ii) whether that suppression was blocked by the presence of BIC and (iii) when, during the recovery period, the disinhibition effect had cleared. These data for each neuron were then tabulated and graphed, so that the time course of the BIC effect could be assessed for the sample. Statistical evaluation of neuronal and population responses were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed rank test (P < 0.05).
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Injection of retrograde tracers (HRP, n = 2; BDA, n = 3) into the dorsal bank of the horizontal (anterior) limb of the AES filled the somatosensory SIV to varying degrees. Injections were directed toward the most anterior portion of SIV, where the representation of the head and forelimb reside. This was done to maximize the distance between the SIV injection site and FAES and AEV, thereby avoiding direct contamination of the posterior AES cortex by the injection site or track. In two cases, the injection was entirely confined to the dorsal bank of the AES, but in the other three (larger) injections, tracer also entered the fundus (para-SIV) and portions of the ventral bank. As expected from previous reports (Reinoso-Suarez and Roda, 1985; Barbaresi et al., 1989
; Mori et al., 1991
), neurons retrogradely labeled from these SIV injections were identified within the ipsilateral somatosensory cortical regions of SISIII and SV.
Injection of HRP (or BDA) into SIV also retrogradely labeled neurons in the posterior 35 mm of the AES cortex, where the sulcus becomes submerged under AI/AII auditory regions of the MEG. As depicted in Figure 1B,D,E, the dorsal and medial portion of this region corresponds to the location of the FAES, while the more ventral portion represents the AEV. FAES neurons labeled from SIV were visualized using either HRP or BDA techniques, as shown in Figure 2A. The somatodendritic labeling for these and other retrogradely marked neurons was consistent with a pyramidal-type morphology, the average diameter of which was 17.6 ± 1.67 µm (from three cats, n = 231, range = 1127 µm).
|
FAES Injections: Anterograde
BDA (10 000 mol. wt) is also a strong anterograde tracer and injections were made in the posterior AES (n = 5) to evaluate the projection to SIV. These injections were distributed such that they collectively covered an arc of tissue from the dorsal regions of the FAES, to its medial/inferior-medial areas and then most inferiorly into the representation of AEV. The four injections that included FAES (Cases 14) produced terminal label observed in the adjacent auditory fields (e.g. AI, AII, AAF; see Clarey and Irvine, 1990b), while the most inferior injection (in AEV; Case 5) did not.
Following BDA injections into auditory FAES cortex, labeled axons and axon terminals were sought within somatosensory SIV. Here, networks of labeled axons were frequently observed and numerous BDA-positive boutons were clearly visible, as is evident from Figure 3. As demonstrated in Figure 4, each of the injections that encroached on the medial bank of the FAES (Cases 24; corresponding to where neurons retrogradely labeled from SIV were concentrated) consistently produced the densest terminal labeling in SIV. By comparison, injections placed too high (Case 1) or too low (Case 5) in the posterior AES cortex yielded reduced or no terminal labeling in SIV.
|
|
|
The presence of projections from auditory FAES to somatosensory SIV was unexpected, because the wealth of physiological studies of SIV have indicated that it is a unimodal, somatosensory area. Clemo and Stein (1983) used natural stimuli from somatosensory, as well as auditory and visual modalities to probe responses of SIV neurons, and reported SIV was exclusively excited by somatosensory inputs. Subsequent reports have substantiated these observations, although some exceptions have noted examples of visual-somatosensory convergence there (Minciacchi et al., 1987
; Jiang et al., 1994a
,b). Therefore, electrophysiological recording techniques were used to examine the functional role of this cross-modal projection in a total of 256 neurons located in and near SIV. Upon reconstruction of the recording tracks, 144 of the neurons were identified within SIV as depicted in Figure 6. Of the SIV neurons examined, nearly all (130/144, 90.3 %) were excited exclusively by somatosensory stimulation; visual or auditory stimulation was ineffective in all but six (4.2%) neurons (see Table 1). Similarly, all neurons encountered in SII (n = 44) showed unimodal somatosensory responses, but those observed in para-SIV (n = 56) revealed a variety of sensory responses whose properties are displayed in Table 1.
|
|
|
Because the FAES projection to SIV arises from layer III/V pyramidal neurons that are typically glutamatergic, the possibility that this projection conveyed excitatory auditory inputs to SIV neurons was further tested using orthodromic stimulation. In 11 animals, a total of 78 stimulating electrodes were implanted within the caudal AES cortex. Of these, the tips of 58 electrodes were histologically confirmed to be located within FAES (see Fig. 6B) and 50 revealed exclusively auditory-evoked activity. Only those electrodes which exhibited auditory-evoked activity were used for subsequent combined FAES-stimulation and somatosensory tests (see Combined Somatosensory and FAES Stimulation, below). However, all implanted electrodes were used for orthodromic stimulation tests. By activating each of the indwelling FAES electrodes individually (500600 µA, 0.1 ms duration), a total of 120 SIV neurons were examined for orthodromic input from FAES. However, none (0/120) of the SIV neurons were excited by FAES stimulation. Similarly, none of the SII (0/44) or para-SIV (0/56) neurons tested was orthodromically activated by FAES stimulation.
Combined Modality Tests for Subthreshold Excitation
Although the projection from FAES did not excite SIV neurons, additional tests explored the possibility that inputs from FAES might carry subthreshold excitatory or suppressive signals to SIV. These tests used a standard multisensory paradigm (see Meredith and Stein, 1986, 1996) to collide excitatory responses evoked by somatosensory stimulation with acoustically-evoked activity. A total of 12 SIV neurons (and 18 para-SIV neurons) were presented a somatosensory cue (within the cells receptive field), a free-field auditory cue (in spatial alignment with the tactile stimulus) and the combination of somatosensory and auditory stimuli (within 15 ms of synchrony) in an interleaved fashion. All of these neurons were responsive to somatosensory cues, but none were excited by the auditory stimulus presented alone and none revealed a significant response increase when the two cues were combined. However, in the example provided in Figure 8, an SIV neuron that was unresponsive to an auditory stimulus presented alone had its somatosensory response significantly suppressed by the presence of an auditory stimulus. That suppression was not observed in all of the neurons tested in this manner may result from the presence of anesthesia and/or the possibility that acoustically-induced suppression might be relatively weak and, therefore, might not achieve a statistically significant response change within a small number of stimulus iterations. However, it is important to note that the neuron depicted in Figure 8 also had its somatosensory response suppressed by FAES stimulation, as described below.
|
While combined-modality tests suggested that auditory cues could suppress SIV responses to somatosensory stimuli, electrical activation of the auditory FAES documented the effect. In this series of tests, somatosensory SIV responses were examined before and in combination with FAES activation through an indwelling electrode. A representative example is shown in Figure 9, where excitation of an SIV neuron elicited by a tactile stimulus was significantly reduced (by 52%; P < 0.05, paired t-test) when combined with activation of auditory FAES. For the entire sample, combining tactile and FAES stimulation significantly suppressed responses to the tactile stimulus in 66% (51/77) of the SIV neurons and the level of suppression ranged from 24100%, as summarized in Figure 9C and Table 2. FAES-suppressed SIV neurons were distributed throughout the anteriorposterior and medio-lateral axis of SIV (see Fig. 6, filled circles) and, accordingly, no particular body region appeared to be disproportionately affected (see Fig. 7, black bars). Furthermore, the effect was widely divergent and a single FAES stimulation site was capable of suppressing activity at different SIV locations. For example, each of the widely separated recording penetrations denoted by asterisks in Figure 6 were taken from a single animal and contained neurons whose responses were suppressed from the same FAES stimulation site. Similar examples of divergence were revealed in the four additional animals in which suppression was observed in more than one penetration. In contrast, FAES-suppression effects were not observed in neurons from the adjoining SII and para-SIV representations. As demonstrated in Figure 9D, responses in both SII and para-SIV to somatosensory stimulation were not significantly affected by concurrent FAES stimulation.
|
|
|
The nature of FAES suppression of SIV responses was characterized by systematically changing the parameters of the FAES stimulation. These tests revealed that the magnitude of suppression was directly related to the level of stimulation intensity or frequency. For example, the tactile responses of a single SIV neuron depicted in Figure 11 were suppressed by concurrent FAES stimulation and, as the rate or intensity of FAES stimulation was systematically increased, the level of response suppression likewise increased. As shown in Figure 11, this relationship was clearly monotonic for both stimulation parameters. In addition, the same relationship between increased levels of FAES stimulation intensity/frequency and increasing levels of SIV suppression was observed in all the other neurons examined in a similar fashion (n = 5, 7, respectively).
|
Given that FAES stimulation suppressed SIV responses, the possibility that this effect was mediated through GABAergic inhibition was initially assessed using in vitro techniques amenable to pharmacological manipulation. Parasagittal slices through the longitudinal extent of the AES were used to make extracellular multiunit recordings before and after application of BIC, the GABA antagonist. A total of 29 AES neurons were examined, of which 69% (n = 20/29) were sensitive to BIC treatment. In these cases, neurons that were either initially unaffected (n = 7/20) or minimally activated (n = 13/20) by electrical stimulation became highly excited by this stimulation in the presence of BIC, indicating that inhibitory GABAergic circuits normally suppressed the evocation of excitatory responses. In addition, in those slices whose plane of section preserved connections between FAES and SIV, 58% (n = 7/12) of the SIV neurons that were minimally activated by electrical stimulation of FAES were strongly activated by that same stimulus in the presence of BIC. An example is provided in Figure 12. In this case, the neuron responded to only 5 of 50 FAES shocks. However, when BIC was applied to the preparation, the neuron was strongly activated by the same stimulus and for a longer time period. Co-application of the excitatory antagonist d-APV served to attenuate the duration of the BIC-enhanced response, while co-administration of excitatory antagonist NBQX completely blocked all synaptic activity. These same effects of excitatory antagonists were observed in 5 of seven cells tested with d-APV and in all six neurons presented with NBQX.
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Collectively, these observations do not support the likelihood that the FAES projection onto SIV neurons results in the conventional, well-known form of multisensory convergence. At present, the neuronal basis for multisensory convergence and integration has largely been explored in the deep layers of the superior colliculus (e.g. Meredith and Stein, 1983, 1986, 1996; King and Palmer, 1985
) and the principles revealed there have been upheld by additional examples identified throughout the neuroaxis and across phylogeny (for a review, see Stein and Meredith, 1993
). In these reports, the multisensory neurons that were encountered were excited by a stimulus presented in one modality and excited by an independent cue presented in another (i.e. excitatoryexcitatory convergence). Therefore, without combining stimuli for concurrent presentation, it has been possible to establish the multisensory nature of many neurons by their independent, excitatory responses to the different modalities. However, in the present case (and previous studies as well; see Clemo and Stein, 1982
, 1983, 1984; Jiang et al., 1994a
,b; Wallace et al., 1992
; Rauschecker and Korte, 1993
), the multisensory nature of SIV neurons was not apparent when stimuli from different sensory modalities were presented alone. In the present study, the multisensory properties of SIV neurons became evident only during combined tests, where excitation elicited through one modality was suppressed by the effects of stimuli from another. Because the nature of the processing controlled by FAES is GABAergic, this new arrangement revealed for SIV neurons might best be regarded as an excitatoryinhibitory form of multisensory convergence.
That inhibition plays a role in multisensory processing, however, is not new. Multisensory response depression occurs as a result of inhibition of responses to one modality by stimulation of another (Meredith and Stein, 1983, 1986, 1996; King and Palmer, 1985
). Of the reported examples of multisensory response depression, these effects occurred in neurons that were excitable by stimuli from more than one modality. Thus, some excitatoryexcitatory inputs apparently carry complex signals whereby one or both excitatory channels are accompanied by inhibitory receptive field surrounds (Meredith and Stein, 1996
) or by potent post-excitatory inhibitory periods (Meredith et al., 1987
). In this way, a stimulus in one modality that was out of spatial and/or temporal alignment could depress activity initiated by another. These mechanisms for multisensory inhibition do not appear to apply to the present observations. The involvement of spatial inhibition seems unlikely here, because all natural stimulation tests were conducted with stimulus combinations that were presented in spatial and temporal alignment. On the other hand, the suppression between FAES and SIV may represent a cross-modal adaptation of GABAergic circuitry which has been well-documented in modality-specific cortices to underlie the generation of a variety of response properties. For example, local GABA-mediated circuits have been demonstrated to modulate the sharpness of frequency tuning in auditory cortex (e.g. Fuzessery and Hall, 1996
; Richter et al., 1999
; Wang et al., 2000
), orientation tuning in visual areas (Sillito, 1975
; Sillito et al., 1985
) and spatial inhibition in barrel field/somatosensory cortex (e.g. Chowdhury and Rasmusson, 2002
; Li et al., 2002
). Therefore, it seems reasonable to speculate that the cross-modal GABAergic suppression observed between FAES and SIV may represent a recruitment of these well-established within-modality connectivity patterns for multisensory purposes. Furthermore, this excitatoryinhibitory form of convergence may underlie a variety of cross-modal inhibitory phenomena, such as that induced by visual motion on vestibular activity in parieto-insular cortex (Brandt et al., 1998
).
While the precise organization of the cross-modal excitatoryinhibitory convergence onto SIV neurons is not yet known, numerous clues exist in the present data that are consistent with the connectivity schematized in Figure 14. First, the size, morphology and laminar location of the FAESSIV projection neurons are consistent with excitatory cortico-cortical connections described for numerous other regions. Next, upon reaching SIV, FAES terminals excite inhibitory interneurons which, in turn, powerfully inhibit principal SIV neurons perhaps by terminations on their soma, proximal dendrites or axon hillock [as documented for different varieties of inhibitory interneurons (see Kawaguchi and Kubota, 1997)]. These arrangements would be consistent with the present in vivo and in vitro experiments demonstrating GABAergic involvement in the FAES suppression of excitatory SIV responses. Furthermore, the results from in vitro slices also revealed excitatory SIV responses to FAES stimulation which appear to be held at subthreshold levels by local GABAergic circuits. Therefore, there is a possibility that principal SIV neurons also receive excitatory inputs from FAES, but do so on their distal dendrites in a manner that is easily regulated by more proximally effected inhibition.
|
The functional or behavioral role of SIV is unknown. Only one study, published as an abstract (Jiang and Guitton, 1995), has examined SIV in behaving animals and showed that SIV stimulation evokes goal-directed movements of the head and body. Given the lack of behavioral data regarding SIV, the possible function of FAES modulation of SIV is rather speculative. Because FAES neurons encode the spatial components of auditory cues (Korte and Rauschecker, 1993
; Rauschecker and Korte, 1993
; Jiang et al., 1994a
,b; Middlebrooks et al., 1994
; Rauschecker, 1996
) and SIV contains a map of the body surface (Clemo and Stein, 1983
), connections between the two areas could serve to provide updates on the spatial alignments among the two modalities. However, such an effect would argue for a point-to-point or block-to-block connectional relationship between the two areas, which is not consistent with the divergent projection pattern observed here. Alternatively, these connections may play a role in cross-modal selective attention, whereby attention to one modality (e.g. auditory) broadly suppresses activity in another (e.g. somatosensory). Attention to stimuli from one modality is well known to suppress event-related potentials evoked by another (Hillyard et al., 1984
; Teder-Salejarvi et al., 1999
; Hotting et al., 2003
) and the cross-modal connections identified here may provide the neuronal basis for such an effect. This notion is supported further by the anatomical divergence of the projection from FAES to SIV, whereby broad areas of tactile activity in SIV might be modulated by the auditory attentional state of the animal. Along this line of reasoning, because both SIV and FAES are heavily connected with the superior colliculus, it is possible that shifts in attention, for example, toward an auditory stimulus, could reduce activity levels (via FAESSIV suppression) of cortical somatosensory afferents to the colliculus while elevating those for auditory afferents, thereby enhancing the likelihood of attending to an auditory stimulus. These effects would be consistent with a role in selective attention.
These results underscore some of the fundamental differences between excitatoryexcitatory and excitatoryinhibitory forms of multisensory convergence. Unlike the well-known excitatoryexcitatory forms of multisensory convergence, the present excitatoryinhibitory multisensory neurons are virtually undetectable as being multisensory using standard extracellular recording and search techniques. Afferents from the inhibitory modality, such as those to SIV neurons from auditory FAES, become apparent only when directly paired against effective stimulation in the other modality (or during high levels spontaneous activity). In the present experiments, sequential single-modality tests revealed a nearly uniform unimodal sample (only 2.3% were multisensory), while combined tests revealed a surprisingly high proportion of auditory FAES-affected SIV neurons (66% were multisensory). Ultimately, the revelation of these silently multisensory neurons suggests that the incidence of multisensory processing in the brain, or at least that between auditory and somatosensory modalities, has been vastly underestimated. Consequently, these observations strongly support the assertion, based on large numbers of behavioral and brain imaging studies, that cross-modal interactions are the rule and not the exception . . . and that the cortical pathways previously thought to be sensory-specific are modulated by signals from other modalities (Shimojo and Shams, 2001).
![]() |
Notes |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Address correspondence to Dr M. Alex Meredith, Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298-0709 USA. Email: mameredi{at}hsc.vcu.edu
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Benedek G, Fischer-Szatmari L, Kovacs G, Perenyi J, Katoh YY (1996) Visual, somatosensory and auditory modality properties along the feline suprageniculateanterior ectosylvian sulcus/insular pathway. Prog Brain Res 112:325334.[ISI][Medline]
Brandt T, Bartenstein P, Janek A, Dieterich M (1998) Reciprocal inhibitory visual-vestibular interaction. Visual motion stimulation deactivates the parieto-insular vestibular cortex. Brain 121:17491758.[Abstract]
Brett-Green B, Fifkova E, Larue DT, Winer JA, Barth DS (2003) A multisensory zone in rat parietotemporal cortex: intra- and extracellular physiology and thalamocortical connections. J Comp Neurol 460:223237.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Burton H, Mitchell G, Brent D (1982) Second somatic sensory area in the cerebral cortex of cats: somatotopic organization and cytoarchitecture. J Comp Neurol 210:109135[ISI][Medline]
Caclin A, Soto-Faraco S, Kingstone A, Spencer (2002) Tactile capture of audition. Percept Psychophys 64:616630.[ISI][Medline]
Calvert GA (2001) Cross-modal processing in the human brain: insights from functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb Cortex 11:11101123.
Chowdhury SA, Rasmusson DD (2002) Comparison of receptive field expansion produced by GABAb and GABA A receptor antagonists in raccoon primary somatosensory cortex. Exp Brain Res 145:150157.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Clarey JC, Irvine DRF (1986) Auditory response properties of neurons in the anterior ectosylvian sulcus of the cat. Brain Res 386:1219.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Clarey JC, Irvine DRF (1990a) The anterior ectosylvian sulcal auditory field in the cat: I. An electrophysiological study of its relationship to surrounding auditory cortical fields. J Comp Neurol 301:289303.[ISI][Medline]
Clarey JC, Irvine DRF (1990b) The anterior ectosylvian sulcal auditory field in the cat: II. A horseradish peroxidase study of its thalamic and cortical connections. J Comp Neurol 301:304324.[ISI][Medline]
Clemo HR, Stein BE (1982) Somatosensory cortex: a new somatotopic representation. Brain Res 235:162168.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Clemo HR, Stein BE (1983) Organization of a fourth somatosensory area of cortex in cat. J Neurophysiol 50:910925.
Clemo HR, Stein BE (1984) Topographic organization of somatosensory corticotectal influences in cat. J Neurophysiol 51:843858.
Duhamel JR, Colby CL, Goldberg ME (1998) Ventral intraparietal area of the macaque: congruent visual and somatic response properties. J Neurophysiol 79:12636.
Felleman DJ, Van Essen DC (1991) Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 1:147.[Abstract]
Fujiwara N, Imai M, Nagamine T, Mimi T, Oga T, Takeshita K, Toma K, Shibasaki H (2002) Second somatosensory area (SII) plays a significant role in selective somatosensory attention. Cogn Brain Res 14:389397.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Fuzessery ZM, Hall JC (1996) Role of GABA I shaping frequency tuning and creating FM sweep selectivity in the inferior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 76:10591073.
Guest S, Catmur C, Lloyd D, Spence C (2002) Audiotactile interactions in roughness perception. Exp Brain Res 146:161171.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Hillyard SA, Simpson GV, Woods DL, VanVoorhis S, Munte TF (1984) Event-related brain potentials and selective attention to different modalities. In: Cortical integration (Reinoso-Suarez F, Ajmone-Marsan C, eds), pp. 395415. New York: Raven.
Hotting K, Rosler F, Roder B (2003) Cross-modal and intermodal attention modulate event-related brain potentials to tactile and auditory stimuli. Exp Brain Res 148:2637.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Jiang H, Guitton D (1995) Eye, head and forelimb movements evoked from the anterior ectosylvian cortex of the unrestrained cat. Soc Neurosci Abstr 21:1899.
Jiang H, Lepore F, Ptito M, Guillemont JP (1994a) Sensory modality distribution in the anterior ectosylvian cortex of cats. Exp Brain Res 97:404414.[ISI][Medline]
Jiang H, Lepore F, Ptito M, Guillemont JP (1994b) Sensory interactions in the anterior ectosylvian cortex of cats. Exp Brain Res 101:385396.[ISI][Medline]
Jousmaki V, Hari R (1998) Parchment-skin illusion: sound biased touch. Curr Biol 8:R190.[ISI][Medline]
King AJ, Palmer AR (1985) Integration of visual and auditory information in bimodal neurones in the guinea-pig superior colliculus. Exp Brain Res 60:492500.[ISI][Medline]
Kawaguchi Y, Kubota Y (1997) GABAergic cell subtypes and their synaptic connections in rat frontal cortex. Cereb Cortex 7:476486.[Abstract]
Korte M, Rauschecker JP (1993) Auditory spatial tuning of cortical neurons is sharpened in cats with early blindness. J Neurophysiol 70:17171721.
LaVail JH, LaVail MM (1974) The retrograde intraaxonal transport of horseradish peroxidase in the chick visual system: a light and electron microscopic study. J Comp Neurol 157:303357.[ISI][Medline]
Li CX, Callaway JC, Waters RS (2002) Removal of GABAergic inhibition alters subthreshold input in neurons in forepaw barrel subfield (FBS) in rat first somatosensory cortex (SI) after digit stimulation. Exp Brain Res 145:411428.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Meredith MA (1999) The frontal eye fields target multisensory neurons in cat superior colliculus. Exp Brain Res 128:460470.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Meredith MA, Clemo HR (1989) Auditory cortical projection from the anterior ectosylvian sulcus (AES) to the superior colliculus in the cat: an anatomical and electrophysiological study. J Comp Neurol 289:687707.[ISI][Medline]
Meredith MA, Ramoa AS (1998) Intrinsic circuitry of the superior colliculus: pharmacophysiological identification of horizontally-oriented inhibitory interneurons. J Neurophysiol 79:15971602
Meredith MA, Stein BE (1983) Interactions among converging sensory inputs in the superior colliculus. Science 221:389391.[ISI][Medline]
Meredith MA, Stein BE (1986) Visual, auditory, and somatosensory convergence on cells in the superior colliculus results in multisensory integration. J Neurophysiol 56:640662.
Meredith MA, Stein BE (1996) Spatial determinants of multisensory integration in cat superior colliculus neurons. J Neurophysiol 75:18431857.
Meredith MA, Nemitz JW, Stein BE (1987) Determinants of multisensory integration in superior colliculus neurons. I. Temporal factors. J Neurosci 7:32153229.[Abstract]
Mesulam MM (1978) Tetramethyl benzidine for horseradish peroxidase neurohistochemistry: a non-carcinogenic blue reaction product with superior sensitivity for visualizing neural afferents and efferents. J Histochem Cytochem 26:106117.[Abstract]
Middlebrooks JC, Clock AE, Xu L, Green DM (1994) A panoramic code for sound location by cortical neurons. Science 264:842844.[ISI][Medline]
Minciacchi D, Tassinari G, Antonini A (1987) Visual and somatosensory integration in the anterior ectosylvian sulcus. Brain Res 410:2131.[ISI][Medline]
Mori A, Hanashima N, Tsuboi Y, Hiraba H, Goto N, Sumino R (1991) Fifth somatosensory cortex (SV) representation of the whole body surface in the medial bank of the anterior suprasylvian sulcus of the cat. Neurosci Res 11:198208.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Nelken I, Bar Yosef O, Rotman Y (1997) Responses of field AES neurons to virtual space stimuli. Soc Neurosci Abstr 23:2071.
Rauschecker JP (1995) Compensatory plasticity and sensory substitution in the cerebral cortex. Trends Neurosci 18:3643.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Rauschecker JP (1996) Substitution of visual by auditory inputs in the cats anterior ectosylvian cortex. Prog Brain Res 112:313323.[ISI][Medline]
Rauschecker JP, Korte M (1993) Auditory compensation for early blindness in cat cerebral cortex. J Neurosci 13:45384548.[Abstract]
Reinoso-Suarez F, Roda JM (1985) Topographical organization of the cortical afferent connections to the cortex of the anterior ectosylvian sulcus in the cat. Exp Brain Res 59:313324.[ISI][Medline]
Richter K, Hess A, Scheich H (1999) Functional mapping of transsynaptic effects of local manipulation of inhibition in gerbil auditory cortex. Brain Res 831:184199.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Schroeder CE, Foxe JJ (2002) The timing and laminar profile of converging inputs to multisensory areas of the macaque neocortex. Cogn Brain Res 14:187198.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Schroeder CE, Lindsley RW, Specht C, Marcovici A, Smiley JF, Javitt DC (2001) Somatosensory input to auditory association cortex in the macaque monkey. J Neurophysiol 85:13221327.
Shimojo S, Shams L (2001) Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions. Curr Opin Neurobiol 11:505509.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Sillito AM (1975) The effectiveness of bicuculline as an antagonist of GABA and visually evoked inhibition in the cats striate cortex. J Physiol 250:287304.[Abstract]
Sillito AM, Salt TE, Kemp JA (1985) Modulatory and inhibitory processes in the visual cortex. Vision Res 25:375381.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Stein BE, Meredith MA (1993) The merging of the senses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Teder-Salejarvi WA, Munte TF, Sperlich F, Hillyard SA (1999) Intra-modal and cross-modal spatial attention to auditory and visual stimuli. An event-related brain potential study. Cogn Brain Res 8:327343.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Veenman CL, Reiner A, Honig MG (1992) Biotinylated dextran amine as an anterograde tracer for single and double labeling studies. J Neurosci Meth 41:239254.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Wallace MT, Meredith MA, Stein BE (1992) Integration of multiple sensory modalities in cat cortex. Exp Brain Res 91:484488.[ISI][Medline]
Wallace MT, Meredith MA, Stein BE (1993) Converging influencing from visual, auditory, and somatosensory cortices onto output neurons of the superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 69:17971809.
Wallace MT, Wilkinson LK, Stein BE (1996) Representation and integration of multiple sensory inputs in primate superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 76:12461266.
Wang J, Caspary D, Salvi RJ (2000) GABA-A antagonist causes dramatic expansion of tuning in primary auditory cortex. Neuroreport 11:11371140.[ISI][Medline]
Xing J, Andersen RA (2000) Models of the posterior parietal cortex which perform multimodal integration and represent space in several coordinate frames. J Cogn Neurosci 12:601614.
Young MP, Scannell JW, Burns G (1995) The analysis of cortical connectivity. New York: Springer.