4.7 Article

Distinct Oscillatory Frequencies Underlie Excitability of Human Occipital and Parietal Cortex

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 37, Issue 11, Pages 2824-2833

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3413-16.2017

Keywords

cortical excitability; occipital; oscillations; parietal; phosphenes; visual perception

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01MH095984]
  2. Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS)
  3. Human Brain Project [EU-H2020-FETFLAGSHIP-HBP-SGA1GA720270]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of human occipital and posterior parietal cortex can give rise to visual sensations called phosphenes. We used near-threshold TMS with concurrent EEG recordings to measure how oscillatory brain dynamics covary, on single trials, with the perception of phosphenes after occipital and parietal TMS. Prestimulus power and phase, predominantly in the alpha band (8-13 Hz), predicted occipital TMS phosphenes, whereas higher-frequency beta-band (13-20 Hz) power (but not phase) predicted parietal TMS phosphenes. TMS-evoked responses related to phosphene perception were similar across stimulation sites and were characterized by an early (200 ms) posterior negativity and a later (>300 ms) parietal positivity in the time domain and an increase in low-frequency (similar to 5-7 Hz) power followed by a broadband decrease in alpha/beta power in the time-frequency domain. These correlates of phosphene perception closely resemble known electrophysiological correlates of conscious perception of near-threshold visual stimuli. The regionally differential pattern of prestimulus predictors of phosphene perception suggests that distinct frequencies may reflect cortical excitability in occipital versus posterior parietal cortex, calling into question the broader assumption that the alpha rhythm may serve as a general index of cortical excitability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available