The "other" transformation required for visual-auditory integration: representational format

Population rate-coding predicts correctly that human sound localization depends on sound intensity

Human sound localization is an important computation performed by the brain. Models of sound localization commonly assume that sound lateralization from interaural time differences is level invariant. Here we observe that two prevalent theories of sound localization make opposing predictions. The labelled-line model encodes location through tuned representations of spatial location and predicts that perceived direction is level invariant. In contrast, the hemispheric-difference model encodes location through spike-rate and predicts that perceived direction becomes medially biased at low sound levels. Here, behavioral experiments find that softer sounds are perceived closer to midline than louder sounds, favoring rate-coding models of human sound localization. Analogously, visual depth perception, which is based on interocular disparity, depends on the contrast of the target. The similar results in hearing and vision suggest that the brain may use a canonical computation of location: encoding perceived location through population spike rate relative to baseline.

Being able to localize sounds helps us make sense of the world around us. The brain works out sound direction by comparing the times of when sound reaches the left versus the right ear. This cue is known as interaural time difference, or ITD for short. But how exactly the brain decodes this information is still unknown.

The brain contains nerve cells that each show maximum activity in response to one particular ITD. One idea is that these nerve cells are arranged in the brain like a map from left to right, and that the brain then uses this map to estimate sound direction. This is known as the Jeffress model, after the scientist who first proposed it. There is some evidence that birds and alligators actually use a system like this to localize sounds, but no such map of nerve cells has yet been identified in mammals. An alternative possibility is that the brain compares activity across groups of ITD-sensitive nerve cells. One of the oldest and simplest ways to measure this is to compare nerve activity in the left and right hemispheres of the brain. This readout is known as the hemispheric difference model.

By analyzing data from published studies, Ihlefeld, Alamatsaz, and Shapley discovered that these two models make opposing predictions about the effects of volume. The Jeffress model predicts that the volume of a sound will not affect a person’s ability to localize it. By contrast, the hemispheric difference model predicts that very soft sounds will lead to systematic errors, so that for the same ITD, softer sounds are perceived closer towards the front than louder sounds. To investigate this further, Ihlefeld, Alamatsaz, and Shapley asked healthy volunteers to localize sounds of different volumes. The volunteers tended to mis-localize quieter sounds, believing them to be closer to the body’s midline than they actually were, which is inconsistent with the predictions of the Jeffress model.

These new findings also reveal key parallels to processing in the visual system. Visual areas of the brain estimate how far away an object is by comparing the input that reaches the two eyes. But these estimates are also systematically less accurate for low-contrast stimuli than for high-contrast ones, just as sound localization is less accurate for softer sounds than for louder ones. The idea that the brain uses the same basic strategy to localize both sights and sounds generates a number of predictions for future studies to test.

Beyond the labeled line: variation in visual reference frames from intraparietal cortex to frontal eye fields and the superior colliculus

We accurately perceive the visual scene despite moving our eyes ~3 times per second, an ability that requires incorporation of eye position and retinal information. In this study, we assessed how this neural computation unfolds across three interconnected structures: frontal eye fields (FEF), intraparietal cortex (LIP/MIP), and the superior colliculus (SC). Single-unit activity was assessed in head-restrained monkeys performing visually guided saccades from different initial fixations. As previously shown, the receptive fields of most LIP/MIP neurons shifted to novel positions on the retina for each eye position, and these locations were not clearly related to each other in either eye- or head-centered coordinates (defined as hybrid coordinates). In contrast, the receptive fields of most SC neurons were stable in eye-centered coordinates. In FEF, visual signals were intermediate between those patterns: around 60% were eye-centered, whereas the remainder showed changes in receptive field location, boundaries, or responsiveness that rendered the response patterns hybrid or occasionally head-centered. These results suggest that FEF may act as a transitional step in an evolution of coordinates between LIP/MIP and SC. The persistence across cortical areas of mixed representations that do not provide unequivocal location labels in a consistent reference frame has implications for how these representations must be read out. NEW & NOTEWORTHY How we perceive the world as stable using mobile retinas is poorly understood. We compared the stability of visual receptive fields across different fixation positions in three visuomotor regions. Irregular changes in receptive field position were ubiquitous in intraparietal cortex, evident but less common in the frontal eye fields, and negligible in the superior colliculus (SC), where receptive fields shifted reliably across fixations. Only the SC provides a stable labeled-line code for stimuli across saccades.

Similar prevalence and magnitude of auditory-evoked and visually evoked activity in the frontal eye fields: implications for multisensory motor control

Saccadic eye movements can be elicited by more than one type of sensory stimulus. This implies substantial transformations of signals originating in different sense organs as they reach a common motor output pathway. In this study, we compared the prevalence and magnitude of auditory- and visually evoked activity in a structure implicated in oculomotor processing, the primate frontal eye fields (FEF). We recorded from 324 single neurons while 2 monkeys performed delayed saccades to visual or auditory targets. We found that 64% of FEF neurons were active on presentation of auditory targets and 87% were active during auditory-guided saccades, compared with 75 and 84% for visual targets and saccades. As saccade onset approached, the average level of population activity in the FEF became indistinguishable on visual and auditory trials. FEF activity was better correlated with the movement vector than with the target location for both modalities. In summary, the large proportion of auditory-responsive neurons in the FEF, the similarity between visual and auditory activity levels at the time of the saccade, and the strong correlation between the activity and the saccade vector suggest that auditory signals undergo tailoring to match roughly the strength of visual signals present in the FEF, facilitating accessing of a common motor output pathway.

Different stimuli, different spatial codes: a visual map and an auditory rate code for oculomotor space in the primate superior colliculus

Maps are a mainstay of visual, somatosensory, and motor coding in many species. However, auditory maps of space have not been reported in the primate brain. Instead, recent studies have suggested that sound location may be encoded via broadly responsive neurons whose firing rates vary roughly proportionately with sound azimuth. Within frontal space, maps and such rate codes involve different response patterns at the level of individual neurons. Maps consist of neurons exhibiting circumscribed receptive fields, whereas rate codes involve open-ended response patterns that peak in the periphery. This coding format discrepancy therefore poses a potential problem for brain regions responsible for representing both visual and auditory information. Here, we investigated the coding of auditory space in the primate superior colliculus(SC), a structure known to contain visual and oculomotor maps for guiding saccades. We report that, for visual stimuli, neurons showed circumscribed receptive fields consistent with a map, but for auditory stimuli, they had open-ended response patterns consistent with a rate or level-of-activity code for location. The discrepant response patterns were not segregated into different neural populations but occurred in the same neurons. We show that a read-out algorithm in which the site and level of SC activity both contribute to the computation of stimulus location is successful at evaluating the discrepant visual and auditory codes, and can account for subtle but systematic differences in the accuracy of auditory compared to visual saccades. This suggests that a given population of neurons can use different codes to support appropriate multimodal behavior.

Psychophysics and neuronal bases of sound localization in humans

Localization of sound sources is a considerable computational challenge for the human brain. Whereas the visual system can process basic spatial information in parallel, the auditory system lacks a straightforward correspondence between external spatial locations and sensory receptive fields. Consequently, the question how different acoustic features supporting spatial hearing are represented in the central nervous system is still open. Functional neuroimaging studies in humans have provided evidence for a posterior auditory "where" pathway that encompasses non-primary auditory cortex areas, including the planum temporale (PT) and posterior superior temporal gyrus (STG), which are strongly activated by horizontal sound direction changes, distance changes, and movement. However, these areas are also activated by a wide variety of other stimulus features, posing a challenge for the interpretation that the underlying areas are purely spatial. This review discusses behavioral and neuroimaging studies on sound localization, and some of the competing models of representation of auditory space in humans. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Human Auditory Neuroimaging.

The effects of interaural time difference and intensity on the coding of low-frequency sounds in the mammalian midbrain

We examined how changes in intensity and interaural time difference (ITD) influenced the coding of low-frequency sounds in the inferior colliculus of male gerbils at both the single neuron and population levels. We found that changes in intensity along the positive slope of the rate-level function (RLF) evoked changes in spectrotemporal filtering that influenced the overall timing of spike events but preserved their precision across trials such that the decoding of single neuron responses was not affected. In contrast, changes in ITD did not trigger changes in spectrotemporal filtering, but did have strong effects on the precision of spike events and, consequently, on decoder performance. However, changes in ITD had opposing effects in the two brain hemispheres and, thus, canceled out at the population level. These results were similar with and without the addition of background noise. We also found that the effects of changes in intensity along the negative slope of the RLF were different from the effects of changes in intensity along the positive slope in that they evoked changes in both spectrotemporal filtering and in the precision of spike events across trials, as well as in decoder performance. These results demonstrate that, at least at moderate intensities, the auditory system employs different strategies at the single neuron and population levels simultaneously to ensure that the coding of sounds is robust to changes in other stimulus features.

Reference frame of the ventriloquism aftereffect

Seeing the image of a newscaster on a television set causes us to think that the sound coming from the loudspeaker is actually coming from the screen. How images capture sounds is mysterious because the brain uses different methods for determining the locations of visual versus auditory stimuli. The retina senses the locations of visual objects with respect to the eyes, whereas differences in sound characteristics across the ears indicate the locations of sound sources referenced to the head. Here, we tested which reference frame (RF) is used when vision recalibrates perceived sound locations. Visually guided biases in sound localization were induced in seven humans and two monkeys who made eye movements to auditory or audiovisual stimuli. On audiovisual (training) trials, the visual component of the targets was displaced laterally by 5-6 degrees. Interleaved auditory-only (probe) trials served to evaluate the effect of experience with mismatched visual stimuli on auditory localization. We found that the displaced visual stimuli induced ventriloquism aftereffect in both humans (approximately 50% of the displacement size) and monkeys (approximately 25%), but only for locations around the trained spatial region, showing that audiovisual recalibration can be spatially specific. We tested the reference frame in which the recalibration occurs. On probe trials, we varied eye position relative to the head to dissociate head- from eye-centered RFs. Results indicate that both humans and monkeys use a mixture of the two RFs, suggesting that the neural mechanisms involved in ventriloquism occur in brain region(s) using a hybrid RF for encoding spatial information.

Multisensory guidance of orienting behavior

We use both vision and audition when localizing objects and events in our environment. However, these sensory systems receive spatial information in different coordinate systems: sounds are localized using inter-aural and spectral cues, yielding a head-centered representation of space, whereas the visual system uses an eye-centered representation of space, based on the site of activation on the retina. In addition, the visual system employs a place-coded, retinotopic map of space, whereas the auditory system's representational format is characterized by broad spatial tuning and a lack of topographical organization. A common view is that the brain needs to reconcile these differences in order to control behavior, such as orienting gaze to the location of a sound source. To accomplish this, it seems that either auditory spatial information must be transformed from a head-centered rate code to an eye-centered map to match the frame of reference used by the visual system, or vice versa. Here, we review a number of studies that have focused on the neural basis underlying such transformations in the primate auditory system. Although, these studies have found some evidence for such transformations, many differences in the way the auditory and visual system encode space exist throughout the auditory pathway. We will review these differences at the neural level, and will discuss them in relation to differences in the way auditory and visual information is used in guiding orienting movements.

Spatiotemporal architecture of cortical receptive fields and its impact on multisensory interactions

Recent electrophysiology studies have suggested that neuronal responses to multisensory stimuli may possess a unique temporal signature. To evaluate this temporal dynamism, unisensory and multisensory spatiotemporal receptive fields (STRFs) of neurons in the cortex of the cat anterior ectosylvian sulcus were constructed. Analyses revealed that the multisensory STRFs of these neurons differed significantly from the component unisensory STRFs and their linear summation. Most notably, multisensory responses were found to have higher peak firing rates, shorter response latencies, and longer discharge durations. More importantly, multisensory STRFs were characterized by two distinct temporal phases of enhanced integration that reflected the shorter response latencies and longer discharge durations. These findings further our understanding of the temporal architecture of cortical multisensory processing, and thus provide important insights into the possible functional role(s) played by multisensory cortex in spatially directed perceptual processes.

A rate code for sound azimuth in monkey auditory cortex: implications for human neuroimaging studies

Is sound location represented in the auditory cortex of humans and monkeys? Human neuroimaging experiments have had only mixed success at demonstrating sound location sensitivity in primary auditory cortex. This is in apparent conflict with studies in monkeys and other animals, in which single-unit recording studies have found stronger evidence for spatial sensitivity. Does this apparent discrepancy reflect a difference between humans and animals, or does it reflect differences in the sensitivity of the methods used for assessing the representation of sound location? The sensitivity of imaging methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging depends on the following two key aspects of the underlying neuronal population: (1) what kind of spatial sensitivity individual neurons exhibit and (2) whether neurons with similar response preferences are clustered within the brain. To address this question, we conducted a single-unit recording study in monkeys. We investigated the nature of spatial sensitivity in individual auditory cortical neurons to determine whether they have receptive fields (place code) or monotonic (rate code) sensitivity to sound azimuth. Second, we tested how strongly the population of neurons favors contralateral locations. We report here that the majority of neurons show predominantly monotonic azimuthal sensitivity, forming a rate code for sound azimuth, but that at the population level the degree of contralaterality is modest. This suggests that the weakness of the evidence for spatial sensitivity in human neuroimaging studies of auditory cortex may be attributable to limited lateralization at the population level, despite what may be considerable spatial sensitivity in individual neurons.