A Distributed Cortical Representation Underlies Crossmodal Object Recognition in Rats

Overview

Journal J Neurosci

Specialty Neurology

Date 2010 May 7

PMID 20445051

Citations 52

Authors

Boyer D Winters

James M Reid

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The mechanisms by which the brain integrates the unimodal sensory features of an object into a comprehensive multimodal object representation are poorly understood. We have recently developed a procedure for assessing crossmodal object recognition (CMOR) and object feature binding in rats using a modification of the spontaneous object recognition (SOR) paradigm. Here we show for the first time that rats are capable of spontaneous crossmodal object recognition when they are asked to recognize a visually presented object having previously only explored the tactile features of that object. Moreover, rats with bilateral perirhinal cortex (PRh) lesions were impaired on the CMOR task and a visual-only, but not a tactile-only, version of SOR. Conversely, rats with bilateral posterior parietal cortex (PPC) lesions were impaired on the CMOR and tactile-only tasks but not the visual-only task. Finally, crossmodal object recognition ability was severely and selectively impaired in rats with unilateral lesions made to PRh and PPC in opposite hemispheres. Thus, spontaneous tactile-to-visual crossmodal object recognition in rats relies on an object representation that requires functional interaction between PRh and PPC, which appear to mediate the visual and tactile information-processing demands of the task, respectively. These results imply that, at least under certain conditions, the separate sensory features of an object are represented in a distributed manner in the cortex. The novel paradigm introduced here should be a valuable tool for further study of the neurobiological bases of crossmodal cognition and object feature binding.

Citing Articles

An essential role for the latero-medial secondary visual cortex in the acquisition and retention of visual perceptual learning in mice.

Consorti A, Sansevero G, Di Marco I, Floridia S, Novelli E, Berardi N Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):7322.

PMID: 39183324 PMC: 11345418. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-51817-5.

Subpopulations of neurons in the perirhinal cortex enable both modality-specific and modality-invariant recognition of objects.

Lim H, Lee I PLoS Biol. 2024; 22(6):e3002713.

PMID: 38924050 PMC: 11233021. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002713.

Multisensory integration and belief in the self.

Bretas R, Tia B, Yamazaki Y, Iriki A Front Psychol. 2022; 13:983592.

PMID: 36312078 PMC: 9608330. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.983592.

Cholinergic regulation of object recognition memory.

Okada K, Hashimoto K, Kobayashi K Front Behav Neurosci. 2022; 16:996089.

PMID: 36248033 PMC: 9557046. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.996089.

Hearing, touching, and multisensory integration during mate choice.

Lenschow C, Mendes A, Lima S Front Neural Circuits. 2022; 16:943888.

PMID: 36247731 PMC: 9559228. DOI: 10.3389/fncir.2022.943888.

References

Davenport R, Rogers C . Intermodal equivalence of stimuli in apes. Science. 1970; 168(3928):279-80. DOI: 10.1126/science.168.3928.279. View

Cowey A, Weiskrantz L . Demonstration of cross-modal matching in rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta. Neuropsychologia. 1975; 13(1):117-20. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(75)90057-3. View

Burwell R, Witter M, Amaral D . Perirhinal and postrhinal cortices of the rat: a review of the neuroanatomical literature and comparison with findings from the monkey brain. Hippocampus. 1995; 5(5):390-408. DOI: 10.1002/hipo.450050503. View

Burwell R . Borders and cytoarchitecture of the perirhinal and postrhinal cortices in the rat. J Comp Neurol. 2001; 437(1):17-41. DOI: 10.1002/cne.1267. View

Kesner R . The posterior parietal cortex and long-term memory representation of spatial information. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2008; 91(2):197-206. PMC: 2675271. DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.09.004. View

Lacey S, Campbell C, Sathian K . Vision and touch: multiple or multisensory representations of objects?. Perception. 2008; 36(10):1513-21. DOI: 10.1068/p5850. View

Ettlinger G, Wilson W . Cross-modal performance: behavioural processes, phylogenetic considerations and neural mechanisms. Behav Brain Res. 1990; 40(3):169-92. DOI: 10.1016/0166-4328(90)90075-p. View

Taylor K, Moss H, Stamatakis E, Tyler L . Binding crossmodal object features in perirhinal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103(21):8239-44. PMC: 1461402. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0509704103. View

King V, Corwin J . Comparisons of hemi-inattention produced by unilateral lesions of the posterior parietal cortex or medial agranular prefrontal cortex in rats: neglect, extinction, and the role of stimulus distance. Behav Brain Res. 1993; 54(2):117-31. DOI: 10.1016/0166-4328(93)90070-7. View

10.

Jeffery K . Do discrimination tasks discourage multi-dimensional stimulus processing? Evidence from a cross-modal object discrimination in rats. Behav Brain Res. 2007; 183(2):213-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.06.017. View

11.

Murray E, Bussey T, Saksida L . Visual perception and memory: a new view of medial temporal lobe function in primates and rodents. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007; 30:99-122. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113046. View

12.

Winters B, Saksida L, Bussey T . Object recognition memory: neurobiological mechanisms of encoding, consolidation and retrieval. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008; 32(5):1055-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.04.004. View

13.

Burwell R, Amaral D . Perirhinal and postrhinal cortices of the rat: interconnectivity and connections with the entorhinal cortex. J Comp Neurol. 1998; 391(3):293-321. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19980216)391:3<293::aid-cne2>3.0.co;2-x. View

14.

Amedi A, von Kriegstein K, van Atteveldt N, Beauchamp M, Naumer M . Functional imaging of human crossmodal identification and object recognition. Exp Brain Res. 2005; 166(3-4):559-71. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-005-2396-5. View

15.

Bussey T, Saksida L . Memory, perception, and the ventral visual-perirhinal-hippocampal stream: thinking outside of the boxes. Hippocampus. 2007; 17(9):898-908. DOI: 10.1002/hipo.20320. View

16.

OVER R, Mackintosh N . Cross-modal transfer of intensity discrimination by rats. Nature. 1969; 224(5222):918-9. DOI: 10.1038/224918a0. View

17.

Tomie J, Whishaw I . New paradigms for tactile discrimination studies with the rat: methods for simple, conditional, and configural discriminations. Physiol Behav. 1990; 48(2):225-31. DOI: 10.1016/0031-9384(90)90305-n. View

18.

Botly L, De Rosa E . The nucleus basalis magnocellularis contributes to feature binding in the rat. Physiol Behav. 2009; 97(3-4):313-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.02.034. View

19.

Botly L, De Rosa E . Cholinergic influences on feature binding. Behav Neurosci. 2007; 121(2):264-76. DOI: 10.1037/0735-7044.121.2.264. View

20.

Banati R, Goerres G, Tjoa C, Aggleton J, Grasby P . The functional anatomy of visual-tactile integration in man: a study using positron emission tomography. Neuropsychologia. 2000; 38(2):115-24. DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00074-3. View