Upload
randolph-blake
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
10. Hedges, S.B., Blair, J.E., Venturi, M.L., andShoe, J.L. (2004). A molecular timescale ofeukaryote evolution and the rise of complexmulticellular life. BMC Evol. Biol. 4, 2.
11. Douzery, E.J.P., Snell, E.A., Bapteste, E.,Delsuc, F., and Philippe, H. (2004). The timing ofeukaryotic evolution: does a relaxed molecularclock reconcile proteins and fossils? Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. USA 101, 15386–15391.
12. Hedley, R.H. (1962). Gromia oviformis(Rhizopodea) from New Zealand withcomments on the fossil Chitinozoa:New Zealand. J. Sci. 5, 121–136.
13. Nikolaev, S.I., Berney, C., Fahrni, J., Bolivar, I.,Polet, S., Mylnikov, A.P., Aleshin, V.V.,Petrov, N.B., and Pawlowski, J. (2004). Thetwilight of Heliozoa and rise of Rhizaria: anemerging supergroup of amoeboid eukaryotes.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 8066–8071.
14. Longet, D., Burki, F., Flakowski, J., Berney, C.,Polet, S., Fahrni, J., and Pawlowski, J. (2004).Multigene evidence for close evolutionary
relations between Gromia and Foraminifera.Acta Protozool. 43, 303–311.
15. Pawlowski, J., Holzmann, M., Berney, C.,Fahrni, J., Gooday, A.J., Cedhagen, T.,Habura, A., and Bowser, S.S. (2003). Theevolution of early Foraminifera. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. USA 100, 11494–11498.
16. Gooday, A.J. (2002). Organic-walledallogromiids: aspects of their occurrence,diversity and ecology in marine habitats.J. Foramin. Res. 32, 384–399.
17. Wilding, T.A. (2002). Taxonomy and ecology ofToxisarcon alba, sp. nov. from Loch Linnhe,west coast of Scotland, UK. J. Foramin. Res.32, 358–363.
18. Gooday, A.J., Bowser, S.S., Bett, B.J., andSmith, C.R. (2000). A large testate protist,Gromia sphaerica sp. nov. (Order Filosea), fromthe bathyal Arabian Sea. Deep-Sea Res. II 47,55–73.
19. Seilacher, A., Grazhdankin, D., and Legouta, A.(2003). Ediacaran biota: the dawn of animal life
in the shadow of giant protists. Paleont. Res. 7,43–54.
20. Peterson, K.J., Cotton, J.A., Gehling, J.G., andPisani, D. (2008). The Ediacaran emergence ofbilaterians: congruence between the geneticand the geological fossil records. Phil. Trans.R. Soc. Lond. B. 363, 1435–1443.
1Department of Zoology and AnimalBiology, University of Geneva, Sciences III,1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland. 2NationalOceanography Centre, Southampton, OceanBiogeochemistry and Ecosystems, EuropeanWay, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK.E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.11.003
Current Biology Vol 19 No 1R30
Visual Perception: Tracking theElusive Footprints of Awareness
Subjective visual experience leaves two distinct, overlapping ‘footprints’ withinvisual cortex: a small ‘footprint’ evident in multi-unit activity, and a much larger‘footprint’ that dominates activity indexed by haemodynamic responses.
Randolph Blake1 and Jochen Braun2
At a professional meeting in 1999 anoverwhelmingly popular presentationwas a poster manned by YoramBonneh from Israel’s WeizmannInstitute. Throngs of people crowdedaround his video monitor to experiencewhat can only be characterized asvisual magic: a small cluster ofstationary yellow dots disappearedfrom visual awareness for secondsat a time when those dots weresurrounded by a swarm of coherentlymoving blue dots [1]. You canexperience a version of this compellingphenomenon by navigating to: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_mib/Dubbed ‘motion-induced blindness’,this beguiling visual illusion strikinglydissociates perception from realityand, thus, provides a powerful tool foridentifying the neural concomitants ofconsciousness [2]. Three recentstudies [3–5], employing closely relatedmotion-induced blindness paradigmsin monkeys and in humans, have nowput this tool to excellent use tounearth results that appear neatlycomplementary and, for the mostpart, consistent.
All three studies contrasted neuralresponses associated with perceptualdisappearance of a readily visible
target surrounded by moving dots withresponses associated with physicalremoval of that target. In two of thesestudies, the ones by Wilke et al. [3] andMaier et al. [4], macaque monkeys weretrained to report their perceptualexperiences while viewing a highlyvisible target presented to one eyetogether with a field of moving dotspresented to the other eye or to botheyes; the moving dots surrounded butdid not occlude the target. In the largemajority of these trials, the animalreported that the target, althoughphysically present, disappearedperceptually. Results from interleavedcontrol trials on which the targetremained visible or on which itdisappeared physically confirmed thereliability and accuracy of the animal’sreports. In the third study, by Donneret al. [5], human observers vieweda clearly visible target while a cloud ofdots rotated around (but never over)the target, thus causing the targetintermittently to disappear fromperception for several seconds ata time. Donner et al. [5] also includeda replay condition in which the targetwas physically turned on and off ina temporal sequence mimicking thetarget’s perceptual fluctuations froma previous motion induced blindnesstrial.
In their monkey study, Wilke et al. [3]recorded target-evoked multi-unitactivity and local-field potentials invisual areas V1, V2, and V4. They foundthat fluctuations in the perceptualpresence of the target was reflectedonly in the multi-unit activity of area V4;in areas V1 and V2, neither multi-unitactivity nor high frequency local-fieldpotentials reflected the perceptualstate reported by the monkey.Interestingly, however, the lowerfrequency bands of the local-fieldpotential presented a completelydifferent picture: here, the power ofthe target response, which wasreduced by the onset of the movingdots, was reduced in all three areas (V1,V2 and V4), more so when the targetdisappeared from perception thanwhen it remained visible. The latency ofthese perception-related reductions inthe low frequency local-field potentialcomponents increased from V1 to V2 toV4, suggesting a feed-forward signal.
A tantalizing parallel to these resultsemerges in the recent study by Donneret al. [5], who used functional magneticresonance imaging (fMRI) to measureblood oxygen level dependent (BOLD)signals in multiple visual cortical areasin the human brain. Evaluating theBOLD activity that accompaniesperceptual target disappearance andreappearance during motion inducedblindness, the authors focused on theretinotopic representation of the targetin ventral visual areas V1, V2, V3 and V4.After discounting contaminations tothe target response by attention (whichis likely drawn to a perceptual transient)and by non-specific modulations (seebelow), the authors found that only
DispatchR31
within V4 did BOLD activity track theperceptual state of the target, dippingat or around the time the targetperceptually disappeared and risingagain when the target perceptuallyreappeared. The absence ofperception-related BOLD modulationsin areas V1, V2 and V3 stands in starkcontrast to the significant BOLDmodulations in these areas on thereplay trials when the target wasphysically turned on and off.
In addition to this retinotopicallylocalized modulation in BOLDresponses, Donner et al. [5] alsouncovered a second correlate ofperceptual target disappearance,this one seen throughout the entirerepresentation of the visual fieldincluding the target area, the areacovered by moving dots, and the visualperiphery. This ‘global’ response wasdelayed with respect to perceptualdisappearance and was also presentwhen the target was physicallyremoved. Perhaps the globalmodulation accompanying targetdisappearance, whether physical orperceptual, is related to the surprisinglywidespread activation thataccompanies perceptual decisions inearly visual areas [6].
So taken together, the studies byWilke et al. [3] and Donner et al. [5]suggest that fluctuations of perceptualexperience in the context of motion-induced blindness leave not one, buttwo overlapping ‘footprints’ in theactivity of visual cortex: a small andretinotopically specific ‘footprint’ inhigher visual areas, notably area V4,and a larger and retinotopicallynonspecific ‘footprint’ at all levels ofthe visual hierarchy, beginning in areaV1 (Figure 1). Interestingly, thesalience of these two ‘footprints’depends on the method used to assaycortical activity: the large footprint isbarely noticeable in multi-unitrecordings — its only trace being inthe low-frequency local-fieldpotential — but becomes readilyevident in BOLD activity. Conversely,the small footprint is very evident inmulti-unit recordings (both in multi-unitactivity and in high-frequency-local-field potential), but is barelydiscernable in BOLD activity. In fact,only an exceptionally well-controlledexperimental paradigm, such as that byDonner et al. [5], could hope to reliablyidentify the small footprint, as it isvirtually swamped by the large footprintin the BOLD response.
The differential salience of the twoneural concomitants of motion-induced blindness also shows up inwork of Maier et al. [4], who comparedsingle-unit recordings and BOLDactivity measured in awake monkeysexperiencing motion-inducedblindness. Focusing on the retinotopicrepresentation of the target in visualarea V1, they found that the BOLD
response tracked perceptualdisappearance, whereas the spikingactivity did not. Physical removal ofthe target, however, was evident inboth BOLD and spiking responses.The only neurophysiologicalcorrelate of this large BOLDmodulation in V1 was a subtlereduction in low-frequency local-fieldpotential power.
Time
Stimulus
Percept
Target subregion
V1
V4
A
B
Current Biology
Figure 1. Neural footprints of motion-induced blindness.
(A) In motion-induced blindness, a clearly visible target (yellow arc) intermittently disappearsfrom visual awareness when surrounded by a swarm of moving dots. (B) Two distinct, overlapp-ing ‘footprints’ of this perceptual disappearance have now been identified in visual cortex. Asmall ‘footprint’ is readily evident in multi-unit recordings (spike rate and high-frequencylocal-field potential) in the target subregion of visual area V4 (intense yellow) [3]. A large ‘foot-print’, covering the entire visual field representation in visual areas V1, V2, V3 and V4 (paleyellow), modulates the haemodynamic response [5]. A more refined analysis resolves thisseeming inconsistency: a small ‘footprint’, which is restricted to area V4, is discernable alsoin the haemodynamic response. Similarly, multi-unit recordings show a subtle modulation ofthe low-frequency local-field-potential also in areas V1 and V2, at least within the retinotopictarget representation [3,4]. It is still unclear whether this modulation also extends to other partsof the visual field, as does the large ‘footprint’ in the haemodynamic response. (We thankTobias Donner for preparing the figure.)
Current Biology Vol 19 No 1R32
But one question remainsunanswered: is there correspondencebetween the motion-inducedblindness-related BOLD modulationsobserved in human and in monkeyarea V1? Donner et al. [5] observeda global but no target-specificmodulation (that is, activation strongerin target than in non-target voxels)in human V1, whereas Maier et al. [4],who did not compare target withnon-target voxels, could not drawthis distinction. Perhaps, then, themotion induced blindness-relatedBOLD modulations in monkey V1are global in nature and, therefore,present within retinotopic regionsof V1 well beyond the targetrepresentation.
So, thanks to the potent, intermittentperceptual suppression of visioninduced by motion induced blindness,we are beginning to see how differentcomponents of neural responseswithin the visual hierarchy are relatedto fluctuations in visual perception,and we can expect to learn evenmore about the neural concomitantsof motion induced blindness in thenear future [7,8]. Moreover, we arebeginning to witness someconvergence between the results ofmonkey neurophysiology and humanbrain imaging in situations whereperception and physical stimulationare dissociated.
Evolutionary CoopeCleaner Fish AggrePromote Female Co
A new study has shown that mixed-sexmore cooperative — service than singlePrisoner’s dilemma.
Maxwell N. Burton-Chellew
Why would Darwinian evolutionproduce organisms that act toincrease the success of others? Theevolution of such behaviour isproblematic because, at first sight,cooperative behaviours appear to bedisadvantageous, and yet cooperationis witnessed throughout Nature. Themost powerful and successfulexplanation has been Hamilton’s
It would be gratifying if the sameconvergence could be realized in thecase of binocular rivalry, anothercompelling phenomenon in whichvisual awareness fluctuates eventhough physical stimulation remainsinvariant [2]. In the rivalry literature,there are nagging inconsistenciesbetween human brain imaging resultsand monkey single-cell results, but noone has yet recorded single-unitactivity, BOLD signals and local-fieldpotentials during rivalry. Brain imagingstudies of humans experiencingbinocular rivalry reveal widespread,perception-related modulations ofBOLD responses, including within thelateral geniculate nucleus, V1 andhigher visual areas [9]. This distributionof brain regions differs from thoseexhibiting target-related BOLDmodulations during motion-inducedblindness, implying that the twophenomena are not mediated by thesame neural circuits. However, thedistinct circuits producing these twophenomena may embody equivalentneural operations that lead to equallycompelling fluctuations in visualperception, in which case we couldreasonably hope to see the sameneural footprints associated withspiking, BOLD and local-fieldpotentials for rivalry and motioninduced blindness, albeit in differentbrain areas.
ration: Malession Mayoperation
pairs of cleaner fish provide a better —tons despite pairs facing an apparent
theory of inclusive fitness [1,2], whichexplains how seeminglydisadvantageous alleles can alsoincrease their transmission indirectlyby helping other individuals, typicallyclose relatives, that are likely to sharethe same allele [1,2]. Yet cooperationalso occurs between unrelatedindividuals and even between differentspecies. The inherent instability of suchcooperation between non-relativesis often conceptualised with the aid of
References1. Bonneh, Y., Cooperman, A., and Sagi, D. (2001).
Motion induced blindness in normal observers.Nature 411, 798–801.
2. Kim, C.Y., and Blake, R. (2005). Psychophysicalmagic: rendering the visible ‘‘invisible’’. TrendsCogn. Sci. 9, 381–388.
3. Wilke, M., Logothetis, N.K., and Leopold, D.A.(2006). Local field potential reflectsperceptual suppression in monkey visualcortex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103,17507–17512.
4. Maier, A., Wilke, M., Aura, C., Zhu, C., Ye, F.Q.,and Leopold, D.A. (2008). Divergence of fMRIand neural signals in V1 during perceptualsuppression in the awake monkey. Nat.Neurosci. 11, 1193–1199.
5. Donner, T.H., Sagi, D., Bonneh, Y.S., andHeeger, D.J. (2008). Opposite neural signaturesof motion-induced blindness in human dorsaland ventral visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 28,10298–10310.
6. Jack, A.I., Shulman, G.L., Snyder, A.Z.,McAvoy, M., and Corbetta, M. (2006). Separatemodulations of human V1 associated withspatial attention and task structure. Neuron51, 135–147.
7. Scholvinck, M., and Rees, G. (2008). Neuralcorrelates of motion-induced blindness in thehuman brain [Abstract]. J. Vis. 8, 793a.http://journalofvision.org/8/6/793/.DOI: 10.1167/8.6.793.
8. Libedinsky, C., Savage, T., and Livingstone, M.(2008). Nature Precedings:hdl:10101/npre.2008.1506.1.
9. Tong, F., Meng, M., and Blake, R. (2006).Neural bases of binocular rivalry. Trends Cogn.Sci. 10, 502–511.
1512 Wilson Hall, Vanderbilt University,Nashville, TN 37240, USA. 2Institute ofBiology, Otto-von-Guericke University,39120 Magdeburg, Germany.E-mail: [email protected];[email protected]
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.11.009
the Prisoner’s dilemma [3] or thetragedy of the commons [4], wherebyindividuals do best by not cooperating(cheating), no matter what theirpartners do. This results in an inevitableoutcome (hence ‘tragic’) in which allrational actors cheat, even though theyall would be better off in the long-term ifthey had all cooperated, hence thedilemma [3,4].
A new study by Bshary et al. [5] hasnow shown that cooperation isachieved between individuals ofa cleaner reef-fish species (Labroidesdimidiatus) that service shared clients(Figure 1), primarily because femalesare more cooperative towards theirclients when they are working witha male than when alone. Thisfacultative cooperation may bea response to the threat of maleaggression. The nature of thiscooperation provides an added twist