Lateral intraparietal area (LIP) is largely effector-specific in free-choice decisions

Christopoulos, Vassilios; Kagan, Igor; Andersen, Richard A.

doi:10.1038/s41598-018-26366-9

Cited by 31 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 65 publications

(85 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This confirms that both regions belong to the same functional brain network supporting the visuospatial guidance of eye movements and attention (Bridge et al, 2015;Gold and Shadlen, 2007;Grieve et al, 2000;Halassa and Kastner, 2017). In support of this notion, inactivation of either region results in a saccade choice bias towards the ipsilesional space (Christopoulos et al, 2018;Wardak et al, 2002;Wilke et al, 2013Wilke et al, , 2012.…”

Section: Similarities and Differences Of Lipd Vs Dpul Microstimulatisupporting

confidence: 74%

“…Providing causal evidence for involvement in spatial visuomotor behavior, reversible pharmacological inactivation in LIP or dPul leads to spatial neglect/extinction characterized by impaired responses to and exploration of the contralateral space (Christopoulos et al, 2018;Li et al, 1999;Liu et al, 2010;Petersen et al, 1987;Wardak et al, 2002Wardak et al, , 2004M. Wilke et al, 2010;Wilke et al, 2013).…”

Section: Highlightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, dPul plays a role in reach as well as saccade choices, while LIP inactivation results mainly in an effector-specific bias for eye movements (Christopoulos et al, 2018;M. Wilke et al, 2010).…”

Section: Similarities and Differences Of Lipd Vs Dpul Microstimulatimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effective connectivity and spatial selectivity-dependent fMRI changes elicited by microstimulation of pulvinar and LIP

Kagan

Gibson

Spanou

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The thalamic pulvinar and the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) share reciprocal anatomical connections and are part of an extensive cortical and subcortical network involved in spatial attention and oculomotor processing. The goal of this study was to compare the effective connectivity of dorsal pulvinar (dPul) and LIP and to probe the dependency of microstimulation effects on task demands and spatial tuning properties of a given brain region. To this end, we applied unilateral electrical microstimulation in the dPul and LIP in combination with event-related BOLD fMRI in monkeys performing fixation and memory-guided saccade tasks. Microstimulation in both dPul and LIP enhanced task-related activity in monosynaptically-connected prefrontal cortex and along the superior temporal sulcus (STS) as well as in extrastriate cortex. Both dPul and LIP stimulation also elicited activity in several cortical areas in the opposite hemisphere, implying polysynaptic propagation of excitation. LIP microstimulation elicited strong activity in the opposite homotopic LIP while no homotopic activation was found during dPul stimulation. Despite extensive activation along the intraparietal sulcus evoked by LIP stimulation, there was a difference in frontal and occipital connectivity elicited by posterior and anterior LIP stimulation sites. Comparison of dPul stimulation with the adjacent but functionally distinct ventral pulvinar also showed distinct connectivity. On the level of single trial timecourses within a region, most microstimulation regions did not show task-dependence of stimulation-elicited response modulation. Across regions, however, there was an interaction between the task and the stimulation, and task-specific correlations between the initial spatial selectivity and the magnitude of stimulation effect were observed. Consequently, stimulation-elicited modulation of task-related activity was best fitted by an additive model scaled down by the initial response amplitude. In summary, we identified overlapping and distinct patterns of thalamocortical and corticocortical connectivity of the two key visuospatial areas, highlighting the dorsal bank and fundus of STS as a prominent node of shared circuitry. Spatial task-specific and partly polysynaptic modulations of cue and saccade planning delay period activity in both hemispheres exerted by unilateral pulvinar and parietal stimulation provide insight into the distributed interhemispheric processing underlying spatial behavior.HighlightsElectrical stimulation of pulvinar and LIP was used to study fMRI effective connectivityBoth regions activated prefrontal cortex and the dorsal bank of superior temporal sulcusActivations within and across hemispheres suggest polysynaptic propagationStimulation effects show interactions between task- and spatial selectivityStimulation effects are best fitted by an additive model scaled by the initial response

show abstract

Section: Similarities and Differences Of Lipd Vs Dpul Microstimulatisupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Highlightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effective connectivity and spatial selectivity-dependent fMRI changes elicited by microstimulation of pulvinar and LIP

Kagan

Gibson

Spanou

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using a free hand choice paradigm similar to that we use in the current study, trialto-trial differences in pre-stimulus measures of cortical excitability over contralateral motor areas are shown to predict hand choice for reaching to targets near the PSE (Hamel-Thibault et al, 2018). Moreover, temporary inactivation of reach- (Christopoulos et al, 2015b) versus saccade-selective (Christopoulos et al, 2018) areas in monkey posterior parietal cortex (areas PRR, mentioned above, and the lateral intraparietal area, LIP, respectively) selectively impairs reach versus saccade choices, respectively, and these data can be explained by computational modelling that specifies competitive interactions between these brain areas (Christopoulos et al, 2015a). Conceptually, our PPIC model is consistent with this framework.…”

Section: The Ppic Modelmentioning

confidence: 82%

The neural basis of hand choice: An fMRI investigation of the Posterior Parietal Interhemispheric Competition model

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigates a new neurobiological model of human hand choice: The Posterior Parietal Interhemispheric Competition (PPIC) model. The model specifies that neural populations in bilateral posterior intraparietal and superior parietal cortex (pIP-SPC) encode actions in hand-specific terms, and compete for selection across and within hemispheres. Actions with both hands are encoded bilaterally, but the contralateral hand is overrepresented. We use a novel fMRI paradigm to test the PPIC model. Participants reach to visible targets while in the scanner, and conditions involving free choice of which hand to use (Choice) are compared with when hand-use is instructed. Consistent with the PPIC model, bilateral pIP-SPC is preferentially responsive for the Choice condition, and for actions made with the contralateral hand. In the right pIP-SPC, these effects include anterior intraparietal and superior parieto-occipital cortex. Left dorsal premotor cortex, and an area in the right lateral occipitotemporal cortex show the same response pattern, while the left inferior parietal lobule is preferentially responsive for the Choice condition and when using the ipsilateral hand. Behaviourally, hand choice is biased by target location-for targets near the left/right edges of the display, the hand in ipsilateral hemispace is favoured. Moreover, consistent with a competitive process, response times are prolonged for choices to more ambiguous targets, where hand choice is relatively unbiased, and fMRI responses in bilateral pIP-SPC parallel this pattern. Our data provide support for the PPIC model, and reveal a selective network of brain areas involved in free hand choice, including bilateral posterior parietal cortex, left-lateralized inferior parietal and dorsal premotor cortices, and the right lateral occipitotemporal cortex.

show abstract

“…Further, although these studies tend to investigate reach choices involving the same effector, recent data suggest that similar "action-based" competitive models can explain effector-selection (Christopoulos et al, 2015a). Temporary inactivation of reach- (Christopoulos et al, 2015b) versus saccade-selective (Christopoulos et al, 2018) areas in monkey posterior parietal cortex (areas PRR, mentioned above, and the lateral intraparietal area, LIP, respectively) selectively impairs reach versus saccade choices, respectively, and these data can be explained by a computational model that specifies competitive interactions between these brain areas (Christopoulos et al, 2015a). Conceptually, our PPIC model is consistent with this framework.…”

Section: The Ppic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The neural basis of hand choice: An fMRI investigation of the Posterior Parietal Interhemispheric Competition model

Fitzpatrick

Dundon

Valyear

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigates a new neurobiological model of human hand choice:The Posterior Parietal Interhemispheric Competition (PPIC) model. The model specifies that neural populations in bilateral posterior intraparietal and superior parietal cortex (pIP-SPC) encode actions in hand-specific terms, and compete for selection across and within hemispheres. Actions with both hands are encoded bilaterally, but the contralateral hand is overrepresented. We use a novel fMRI paradigm to test the PPIC model. Participants reach to visible targets while in the scanner, and conditions involving free choice of which hand to use (Choice) are compared with when hand-use is instructed. Consistent with the PPIC model, bilateral pIP-SPC is preferentially responsive for the Choice condition, and for actions made with the contralateral hand. In the right pIP-SPC, these effects include anterior intraparietal and superior parieto-occipital cortex. Left dorsal premotor cortex, and an area in the right lateral occipitotemporal cortex show the same response pattern, while the left inferior parietal lobule is preferentially responsive for the Choice condition and when using the ipsilateral hand. Behaviourally, hand choice is biased by target locationfor targets near the left/right edges of the display, the hand in ipsilateral hemispace is favoured. Moreover, consistent with a competitive process, response times are prolonged for choices to more ambiguous targets, where hand choice is relatively unbiased, and fMRI responses in bilateral pIP-SPC parallel this pattern. Our data provide support for the PPIC model, and reveal a selective network of brain areas involved in free hand choice, including bilateral posterior parietal cortex, left-lateralized inferior parietal and dorsal premotor cortices, and the right lateral occipitotemporal cortex.

show abstract

Lateral intraparietal area (LIP) is largely effector-specific in free-choice decisions

Cited by 31 publications

References 65 publications

Effective connectivity and spatial selectivity-dependent fMRI changes elicited by microstimulation of pulvinar and LIP

Effective connectivity and spatial selectivity-dependent fMRI changes elicited by microstimulation of pulvinar and LIP

The neural basis of hand choice: An fMRI investigation of the Posterior Parietal Interhemispheric Competition model

The neural basis of hand choice: An fMRI investigation of the Posterior Parietal Interhemispheric Competition model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About