Leon C. Ho1,2, Russell W. Chan1,2, Patrick P. Gao1,2, Alex T.L. Leong1,2, Celia M. Dong1,2, and Ed X. Wu1,2
1Laboratory of Biomedical Imaging and Signal Processing, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, People's Republic of, 2Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, People's Republic of
Synopsis
Visual inputs are primarily
processed by the visual system. However visual input also interacts with other
sensory cortices to speed up or improve sensory perception. While the effect of
different parameters of visual input to crossmodal influences remains largely
unexplored, this study showed strong low frequency light evoked responses in
auditory cortex, secondary somatosensory cortex, cingulate cortex and caudate
putamen. The activations in those brain regions likely propagated from the
visual cortex and influenced subcortical responses. Our current study provides
a functional understanding to cortical crossmodal processing and its influences
to subcortex upon visual stimuli of different intensities and frequencies. Purpose
While visual input is normally treated
as a unimodal stimulus, it is able to influence other sensory cortices and
modulate their processing through multisensory interaction
1, 2. Since the
visual system responds differently to stimuli of different intensities and frequencies,
the corresponding responses may alter crossmodal influences. Yet, the effect of
different parameters of visual input to crossmodal influences
remains largely unexplored. In this study, light stimulation of different intensities
and frequencies were presented to normal rodents and their BOLD responses were compared
to characterize the crossmodal responses evoked by visual stimuli of different
intensities and frequencies.
Methods
Visual stimulation:
Adult male rats (n=12, 300-350g, Sprague Dawley strain) were anesthetized with mixed
air and 1.3% isoflurane during fMRI scanning. Binocular visual stimulation was
delivered to the rats through an optical fiber placed 1.5cm in front and along
the midline of the eyes. Blue light at 1Hz and 10Hz (10% duty, peak power=2mW
(n=8) and 0.1mW (n=4)) was presented in
a block-design paradigm (20s on and 40s off).
fMRI acquisition and analysis:
fMRI data was acquired at 7T using GE-EPI (FOV=32×32mm
2, matrix=64×64,
α=56°, TE/TR=20/1000ms, 12 contiguous slices with 1mm thickness). Data were preprocessed
before the standard GLM analysis was applied to identify significant BOLD
responses (p<0.001).
Results
Figure
1 shows the BOLD activation maps upon 1Hz and 10Hz light stimulation at peak
power of 2mW and 0.1mW. The visual pathway (e.g. visual cortex (VC), superior
colliculus (SC) and lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN)) and other brain regions
(e.g. auditory cortex (AC), secondary somatosensory cortex (S2), cingulate
cortex (Cg) and caudate putamen (CPu)) were activated during 1Hz 2mW light stimulation,
while only the VC, SC and LGN were activated during 1Hz 0.1mW light stimulation.
Under 10Hz light stimulation, only SC and LGN were activated at both light
power levels. Figure 2 shows 1Hz 2mW light evoked similar BOLD increase among
different cortical regions (VC, AC, S2 and Cg) and caudate putamen. Figure 3 compares
the BOLD responses in the visual pathway evoked by different visual stimuli. It
shows the BOLD increase in the SC is smaller during 1Hz light stimulation at
2mW compared to 0.1mW (p<0.05, unpaired t-test on averaged BOLD signal change).
Discussion
Previous studies showed the functional
and structural connections among the visual cortex, sensory cortices and
subcortical regions in multisensory brain interaction or processing
1-5. Strong
low frequency light stimulation evoked
responses in the visual pathway, auditory cortex, secondary somatosensory
cortex, cingulate cortex and caudate putamen. Responses in AC and S2
likely reflect the interaction among these areas and the visual system, while
the response in CPu may suggest sensory integration through CPu when strong low
frequency light were delivered. Earlier studies described the involvement of
the cingulate cortex in attentional modulation of the sensory
processing
6. The activation in the Cg may provide attentional
control to multisensory interaction among VC, AC and S2. Upon strong low
frequency light stimulation, BOLD response in the SC is smaller and more
confined. This possibly resembles the converging cortical influences to SC during
multisensory integration
7, 8. Since a low population of neuron in the visual
cortex responds to high frequency stimuli
9, high frequency stimuli, compared
to low frequency stimuli, induce less activation in the visual cortex, which
may account for the insignificance or the absence of the visual cortex
activation upon 10Hz light stimulation. Note that 2mW 10Hz light stimulation did
not evoke responses in those sensory and attention circuits. This may suggest that
large-scale brain activations propagated from the visual cortex. Since visual
cortex does not response to 1Hz stimulus only, the large-scale brain activation would
be expected upon strong light at other low frequencies. Whether such
large-scale brain activation possesses frequency dependence at or below 1Hz remains
to be elucidated.
Conclusion
This is the first visual fMRI study
that demonstrated large-scale brain activation using strong low frequency light
stimulation. Such
stimulus evoked responses in the visual system and brain regions that play a
role in multisensory interaction and attentional modulation of sensory processing.
The activations in those brain regions likely propagated from the visual cortex and influenced subcortical responses. Our
current study provides a functional understanding to cortical crossmodal activity
and its influences on the subcortex upon visual stimuli of different intensities
and frequencies.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] Taylor-Clarke, M.,
S. Kennett, et al. (2002). Curr Biol 12(3): 233-236.
[2] Sieben, K., B.
Röder, et al. (2013). Multisensory Research 26(0): 204-204
[3] Hihara, S., M. Taoka, et al. (2015). Cereb
Cortex 25(11): 4535-4550.
[4] Spence, C. (2011).
Atten Percept Psychophys 73(4): 971-995.
[5] Reig, R. and G.
Silberberg (2014). Neuron 83(5): 1200-1212.
[6] Crottaz-Herbette, S. and V. Menon (2006). J Cogn
Neurosci 18(5): 766-780
[7] Ghose D., The Journal of neuroscience : the
official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 2014;34:4332-44.
[8] Alvarado J. C., The Journal of neuroscience :
the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 2007;27:12775-86
[9] Van Camp, N., M.
Verhoye, et al. (2006). J Neurophysiol 95(5): 3164-3170