The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli

Zhao Zhu, Johanna M. Zumer, Marianne E. Lowenthal, Jeff Padberg, Gregg H. Recanzone, Leah A. Krubitzer, Srikantan S. Nagarajan, Elizabeth A. Disbrow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has become an increasingly popular technique for non-invasively characterizing neuromagnetic field changes in the brain at a high temporal resolution. To examine the reliability of the MEG signal, we compared magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli from the same animals. We examined changes in neuromagnetic fields, local field potentials (LFP) and multi-unit activity (MUA) in macaque monkey primary somatosensory cortex that were induced by varying the rate of mechanical stimulation. Stimuli were applied to the fingertips with three inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs): 0.33s, 1s and 2s. Results: Signal intensity was inversely related to the rate of stimulation, but to different degrees for each measurement method. The decrease in response at higher stimulation rates was significantly greater for MUA than LFP and MEG data, while no significant difference was observed between LFP and MEG recordings. Furthermore, response latency was the shortest for MUA and the longest for MEG data. Conclusion: The MEG signal is an accurate representation of electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli. Further, the intensity and latency of the MEG signal were better correlated with the LFP than MUA data suggesting that the MEG signal reflects primarily synaptic currents rather than spiking activity. These differences in latency could be attributed to differences in the extent of spatial summation and/or differential laminar sensitivity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number4
JournalBMC Neuroscience
Volume10
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 15 2009

Fingerprint

Magnetoencephalography
Touch
Somatosensory Cortex
Macaca
Reaction Time
Haplorhini
Brain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

Zhu, Z., Zumer, J. M., Lowenthal, M. E., Padberg, J., Recanzone, G. H., Krubitzer, L. A., ... Disbrow, E. A. (2009). The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli. BMC Neuroscience, 10, [4]. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-10-4

The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli. / Zhu, Zhao; Zumer, Johanna M.; Lowenthal, Marianne E.; Padberg, Jeff; Recanzone, Gregg H.; Krubitzer, Leah A.; Nagarajan, Srikantan S.; Disbrow, Elizabeth A.

In: BMC Neuroscience, Vol. 10, 4, 15.01.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zhu, Z, Zumer, JM, Lowenthal, ME, Padberg, J, Recanzone, GH, Krubitzer, LA, Nagarajan, SS & Disbrow, EA 2009, 'The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli', BMC Neuroscience, vol. 10, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-10-4
Zhu, Zhao ; Zumer, Johanna M. ; Lowenthal, Marianne E. ; Padberg, Jeff ; Recanzone, Gregg H. ; Krubitzer, Leah A. ; Nagarajan, Srikantan S. ; Disbrow, Elizabeth A. / The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli. In: BMC Neuroscience. 2009 ; Vol. 10.
@article{cf87cb837f874c419ed3111cbeceb8c1,
title = "The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli",
abstract = "Background: Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has become an increasingly popular technique for non-invasively characterizing neuromagnetic field changes in the brain at a high temporal resolution. To examine the reliability of the MEG signal, we compared magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli from the same animals. We examined changes in neuromagnetic fields, local field potentials (LFP) and multi-unit activity (MUA) in macaque monkey primary somatosensory cortex that were induced by varying the rate of mechanical stimulation. Stimuli were applied to the fingertips with three inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs): 0.33s, 1s and 2s. Results: Signal intensity was inversely related to the rate of stimulation, but to different degrees for each measurement method. The decrease in response at higher stimulation rates was significantly greater for MUA than LFP and MEG data, while no significant difference was observed between LFP and MEG recordings. Furthermore, response latency was the shortest for MUA and the longest for MEG data. Conclusion: The MEG signal is an accurate representation of electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli. Further, the intensity and latency of the MEG signal were better correlated with the LFP than MUA data suggesting that the MEG signal reflects primarily synaptic currents rather than spiking activity. These differences in latency could be attributed to differences in the extent of spatial summation and/or differential laminar sensitivity.",
author = "Zhao Zhu and Zumer, {Johanna M.} and Lowenthal, {Marianne E.} and Jeff Padberg and Recanzone, {Gregg H.} and Krubitzer, {Leah A.} and Nagarajan, {Srikantan S.} and Disbrow, {Elizabeth A.}",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2202-10-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
journal = "BMC Neuroscience",
issn = "1471-2202",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli

AU - Zhu, Zhao

AU - Zumer, Johanna M.

AU - Lowenthal, Marianne E.

AU - Padberg, Jeff

AU - Recanzone, Gregg H.

AU - Krubitzer, Leah A.

AU - Nagarajan, Srikantan S.

AU - Disbrow, Elizabeth A.

PY - 2009/1/15

Y1 - 2009/1/15

N2 - Background: Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has become an increasingly popular technique for non-invasively characterizing neuromagnetic field changes in the brain at a high temporal resolution. To examine the reliability of the MEG signal, we compared magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli from the same animals. We examined changes in neuromagnetic fields, local field potentials (LFP) and multi-unit activity (MUA) in macaque monkey primary somatosensory cortex that were induced by varying the rate of mechanical stimulation. Stimuli were applied to the fingertips with three inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs): 0.33s, 1s and 2s. Results: Signal intensity was inversely related to the rate of stimulation, but to different degrees for each measurement method. The decrease in response at higher stimulation rates was significantly greater for MUA than LFP and MEG data, while no significant difference was observed between LFP and MEG recordings. Furthermore, response latency was the shortest for MUA and the longest for MEG data. Conclusion: The MEG signal is an accurate representation of electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli. Further, the intensity and latency of the MEG signal were better correlated with the LFP than MUA data suggesting that the MEG signal reflects primarily synaptic currents rather than spiking activity. These differences in latency could be attributed to differences in the extent of spatial summation and/or differential laminar sensitivity.

AB - Background: Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has become an increasingly popular technique for non-invasively characterizing neuromagnetic field changes in the brain at a high temporal resolution. To examine the reliability of the MEG signal, we compared magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli from the same animals. We examined changes in neuromagnetic fields, local field potentials (LFP) and multi-unit activity (MUA) in macaque monkey primary somatosensory cortex that were induced by varying the rate of mechanical stimulation. Stimuli were applied to the fingertips with three inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs): 0.33s, 1s and 2s. Results: Signal intensity was inversely related to the rate of stimulation, but to different degrees for each measurement method. The decrease in response at higher stimulation rates was significantly greater for MUA than LFP and MEG data, while no significant difference was observed between LFP and MEG recordings. Furthermore, response latency was the shortest for MUA and the longest for MEG data. Conclusion: The MEG signal is an accurate representation of electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli. Further, the intensity and latency of the MEG signal were better correlated with the LFP than MUA data suggesting that the MEG signal reflects primarily synaptic currents rather than spiking activity. These differences in latency could be attributed to differences in the extent of spatial summation and/or differential laminar sensitivity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62249192089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62249192089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2202-10-4

DO - 10.1186/1471-2202-10-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 19146670

AN - SCOPUS:62249192089

VL - 10

JO - BMC Neuroscience

JF - BMC Neuroscience

SN - 1471-2202

M1 - 4

ER -