| Literature DB >> 28457575 |
Koen V Haak1, Christian F Beckmann2.
Abstract
The cortical visual system is composed of many areas serving various visual functions. In non-human primates, these are broadly organised into two distinct processing pathways: a ventral pathway for object recognition, and a dorsal pathway for action. In humans, recent theoretical proposals suggest the possible existence of additional pathways, but direct empirical evidence has yet to be presented. Here, we estimated the connectivity patterns between 22 human visual areas using resting-state functional MRI data of 470 individuals, leveraging the unprecedented data quantity and quality of the Human Connectome Project and a novel probabilistic atlas. An objective, data-driven analysis into the topological organisation of connectivity and subsequent quantitative confirmation revealed a highly significant triple dissociation between the retinotopic areas on the dorsal, ventral and lateral surfaces of the human occipital lobe. This suggests that the functional organisation of the human visual system involves not two but three cortical pathways.Entities:
Keywords: Functional connectivity; Human connectome project; Processing pathways; Resting-state fMRI; Visual cortex
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28457575 PMCID: PMC5780302 DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.03.020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cortex ISSN: 0010-9452 Impact factor: 4.027
Fig. 1The topological organisation of the human cortical visual connectome. MDS results for session day 1 (see Supplementary Fig. 2 for the results of session day 2). Functional connections are colour-coded according to the group-level (N = 470) partial correlations (back-transformed from z to r values after averaging) between the mean resting-state fMRI time-series of each of the area-pairs. Area boxes are colour-coded according to their anatomical locations (WANDELL et al., 2007, WANG et al., 2015), with colour-intensity weighted by the distance to V1-3. Black boxes indicate early visual areas on the medial occipital surface (V1-3). Red boxes indicate areas on the ventral occipitotemporal surface (hV4, VO1/2, PHC1/2). Blue boxes indicate areas on the lateral occipitotemporal surface (LO1/2, TO1/2). Note that TO1/2 corresponds to V5/MT+; (Amano, Wandell, & Dumoulin, 2009). Green boxes indicate areas on the occipitoparietal (V3A/B, V7, IPS1-5, SPL1) and frontal cortices (FEF).
Quantitative comparisons between Fig. 1 and possible organisational models. Comparisons were performed by Procrustes rotation. The statistical significance (probability) of the associated variance-explained (R2) statistics was assessed by repeating the Procrustes rotation after randomly permuting the area labels of the numerical models on each of 100,000 iterations while noting the fraction of times that the variance-explained statistic exceeded or was equal to the variance explained by the un-permuted organisational model. The ‘nearest-neighbour’, ‘nearest-neighbour or next-door-but-one’, ‘interhemispheric’ and the ‘combined nearest-neighbour or next-door-but-one and interhemispheric’ models were constructed by creating artificial connectivity matrices and submitting these to the same MDS procedure that was used to derive the structure shown in Fig. 1. The ‘nearest-neighbour’ and ‘nearest-neighbour or next-door-but-one’ connectivity matrices were constructed as described in Young (1992). To construct the ‘interhemispheric’ connectivity matrix, we scored all connections between homologous areas in the opposing hemispheres as ‘1’ and all other connections as ‘0’. The ‘combined nearest-neighbour or next-door-but-one and interhemispheric’ connectivity matrix was defined as the sum of the ‘nearest-neighbour or next-door-but-one’ and ‘interhemispheric’ matrices. The hierarchical model was constructed as a one-dimensional vector of shortest path-lengths through the ‘nearest-neighbour’ matrix between each area and ipsilateral V1 (as determined by Dijkstra's algorithm). The two and three streams models were constructed as one-dimensional vectors of values representing each area's stream category based on the colour-coding in Fig. 1. Note that V1, V2 and V3 were excluded from these comparisons since these areas were deemed not to belong to any particular visual processing stream; they were excluded from all comparisons reported in this table to allow for comparison across models. Although all of the modelled organisational principles appear to be reflected in Fig. 1 to some extend, the topological organisation of the human visual connectome is most parsimoniously and fully explained by the ‘combined hierarchical and three streams’ model.
| Organisational Model | Probability | |
|---|---|---|
| Nearest-neighbour | .14 | |
| Nearest-neighbour or next-door-but-one | .13 | |
| Interhemispheric | .08 | |
| Combined nearest-neighbour or next-door-but-one and interhemispheric | .67 | |
| Hierarchical | .35 | |
| Three streams | .47 | |
| Combined hierarchical and three streams | .80 | |
| Combined hierarchical and two streams: | ||
| ventral + lateral | .25 | |
| dorsal + lateral | .68 | |
| ventral + dorsal | .66 | |
Fig. 2Triple dissociation between ventral, lateral and dorsal visual cortex. Panels show the average (z-transformed) between- and within-stream connectivity strengths across 100 unrelated subjects for the putative ventral and lateral streams (left) the putative ventral and dorsal streams (middle), and the putative lateral and dorsal streams (right). Error-bars indicate the standard deviation. Approximate visual area locations are indicated by transparent boxes on a three-dimensional rendering of the right cerebral hemisphere.
Fig. 3Hierarchical clustering results. The optimal number of clusters is given by the maximal effect size (Cohen's d for repeated measures; N = 470) of the difference between the within-cluster and between-cluster connectivity strengths (i.e., the partial correlation between area pairs as shown in Fig. S1). The red ‘x’ in the right panel indicates the corresponding effect-size (N = 470; all within-stream versus all between-stream connections, both session days combined) for the area-to-stream assignments based on their anatomical locations (see Fig. 2), which, except for area lTO2, were identical to the optimal hierarchical clustering results (k = 3; left panel).