Cortical Magnification in Human Visual Cortex Parallels Task Performance around the Visual Field

  1. Noah C Benson  Is a corresponding author
  2. Eline R Kupers
  3. Antoine Babot
  4. Marisa Carrasco
  5. Jonathan Winawer
  1. University of Washington, United States
  2. New York University, United States
  3. Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging, Netherlands

Abstract

Human vision has striking radial asymmetries, with performance on many tasks varying sharply with stimulus polar angle. Performance is generally better on the horizontal than vertical meridian, and on the lower than upper vertical meridian, and these asymmetries decrease gradually with deviation from the vertical meridian. Here we report cortical magnification at a fine angular resolution around the visual field. This precision enables comparisons between cortical magnification and behavior, between cortical magnification and retinal cell densities, and between cortical magnification in twin pairs. We show that cortical magnification in human primary visual cortex, measured in 163 subjects, varies substantially around the visual field, with a pattern similar to behavior. These radial asymmetries in cortex are larger than those found in the retina, and they are correlated between monozygotic twin pairs. These findings indicate a tight link between cortical topography and behavior, and suggest that visual field asymmetries are partly heritable.

Data availability

All source code and data have been permanently archived on the Open Science Framework with DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/5GPRZ.

The following data sets were generated
    1. Benson NC
    2. Kupers ER
    3. Barbot A
    4. Carrasco M
    5. Winawer J
    (2020) Visual Performance Fields
    Open Science Framework, doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/5GPRZ.
The following previously published data sets were used
    1. Benson NC et al.
    (2018) The Human Connectome Project 7 Tesla Retinotopy Dataset
    Open Science Framework, doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/BW9EC.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Noah C Benson

    eScience Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    nben@uw.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2365-8265
  2. Eline R Kupers

    Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4972-5307
  3. Antoine Babot

    Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Marisa Carrasco

    Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    Marisa Carrasco, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1002-9056
  5. Jonathan Winawer

    Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7475-5586

Funding

National Eye Institute (RO1-EY027401)

  • Marisa Carrasco
  • Jonathan Winawer

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ming Meng, South China Normal University, China

Ethics

Human subjects: No human subjects data were collected for this paper. All data used in this paper were obtained from previous publications and publicly-available datasets in which subjects provided informed consent. Primarily, analyses were performed using data from the HCP (D. C. Van Essen et al. 2012, Neuroimage 62:2222-2231), including data from the HCP that were reanalyzed by subsequent studies (Benson et al. 2018, J Vis 18:23; Benson et al. 2021, bioRxiv 10.1101/2020.12.30.424856). Additionally, Figures 1 and 3 includes data replotted from previous publications by the authors (Carrasco et al. 2001, Spat Vis 15:61-75; Abrams et al. 2012, Vision Res 52:70-78; Barbot et al. 2021, J Vis 21:2), and Figure 5 includes publicly available data from Curcio et al. (1990, J Comp Neurol 292:497-523). In all cases, informed consent was obtained from subjects in the original studies, and all applicable use policies were followed in the use of the data. No personal health information is included in this paper or in the associated dataset or code.

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: August 26, 2020 (view preprint)
  2. Received: February 19, 2021
  3. Accepted: August 2, 2021
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: August 3, 2021 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: August 20, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Benson et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,390
    views
  • 272
    downloads
  • 53
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Noah C Benson
  2. Eline R Kupers
  3. Antoine Babot
  4. Marisa Carrasco
  5. Jonathan Winawer
(2021)
Cortical Magnification in Human Visual Cortex Parallels Task Performance around the Visual Field
eLife 10:e67685.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67685

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67685

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Maximilian Nagel, Marco Niestroj ... Marc Spehr
    Research Article

    In most mammals, conspecific chemosensory communication relies on semiochemical release within complex bodily secretions and subsequent stimulus detection by the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Urine, a rich source of ethologically relevant chemosignals, conveys detailed information about sex, social hierarchy, health, and reproductive state, which becomes accessible to a conspecific via vomeronasal sampling. So far, however, numerous aspects of social chemosignaling along the vomeronasal pathway remain unclear. Moreover, since virtually all research on vomeronasal physiology is based on secretions derived from inbred laboratory mice, it remains uncertain whether such stimuli provide a true representation of potentially more relevant cues found in the wild. Here, we combine a robust low-noise VNO activity assay with comparative molecular profiling of sex- and strain-specific mouse urine samples from two inbred laboratory strains as well as from wild mice. With comprehensive molecular portraits of these secretions, VNO activity analysis now enables us to (i) assess whether and, if so, how much sex/strain-selective ‘raw’ chemical information in urine is accessible via vomeronasal sampling; (ii) identify which chemicals exhibit sufficient discriminatory power to signal an animal’s sex, strain, or both; (iii) determine the extent to which wild mouse secretions are unique; and (iv) analyze whether vomeronasal response profiles differ between strains. We report both sex- and, in particular, strain-selective VNO representations of chemical information. Within the urinary ‘secretome’, both volatile compounds and proteins exhibit sufficient discriminative power to provide sex- and strain-specific molecular fingerprints. While total protein amount is substantially enriched in male urine, females secrete a larger variety at overall comparatively low concentrations. Surprisingly, the molecular spectrum of wild mouse urine does not dramatically exceed that of inbred strains. Finally, vomeronasal response profiles differ between C57BL/6 and BALB/c animals, with particularly disparate representations of female semiochemicals.

    1. Neuroscience
    Kenta Abe, Yuki Kambe ... Tatsuo Sato
    Research Article

    Midbrain dopamine neurons impact neural processing in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) through mesocortical projections. However, the signals conveyed by dopamine projections to the PFC remain unclear, particularly at the single-axon level. Here, we investigated dopaminergic axonal activity in the medial PFC (mPFC) during reward and aversive processing. By optimizing microprism-mediated two-photon calcium imaging of dopamine axon terminals, we found diverse activity in dopamine axons responsive to both reward and aversive stimuli. Some axons exhibited a preference for reward, while others favored aversive stimuli, and there was a strong bias for the latter at the population level. Long-term longitudinal imaging revealed that the preference was maintained in reward- and aversive-preferring axons throughout classical conditioning in which rewarding and aversive stimuli were paired with preceding auditory cues. However, as mice learned to discriminate reward or aversive cues, a cue activity preference gradually developed only in aversive-preferring axons. We inferred the trial-by-trial cue discrimination based on machine learning using anticipatory licking or facial expressions, and found that successful discrimination was accompanied by sharper selectivity for the aversive cue in aversive-preferring axons. Our findings indicate that a group of mesocortical dopamine axons encodes aversive-related signals, which are modulated by both classical conditioning across days and trial-by-trial discrimination within a day.