Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Lesions of prefrontal cortex reduce attentional modulation of neuronal responses and synchrony in V4

Nature Neuroscience volume 17, pages 1003–1011 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

It is widely held that the frontal eye field (FEF) in prefrontal cortex (PFC) modulates processing in visual cortex with attention, although the evidence that it is necessary is equivocal. To help identify critical sources of attentional feedback to area V4, we surgically removed the entire lateral PFC, including the FEF, in one hemisphere and transected the corpus callosum and anterior commissure in two macaques. This deprived V4 of PFC input in one hemisphere while keeping the other hemisphere intact. In the absence of PFC, attentional effects on neuronal responses and synchrony in V4 were substantially reduced and the remaining effects of attention were delayed in time, indicating a critical role for PFC. Conversely, distracters captured attention and influenced V4 responses. However, because the effects of attention in V4 were not eliminated by PFC lesions, other sources of top-down attentional control signals to visual cortex must exist outside of PFC.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Surgical lesion and task.
Figure 2: Effect of attention on firing rate responses in V4 of the control and lesion-affected hemisphere.
Figure 3: Effect of attention on V4 LFP power in the control and lesion-affected hemisphere.
Figure 4: Effect of attention on synchronization and noise correlation in V4 in the control and lesion-affected hemisphere.
Figure 5: Effect of attention on V4 firing rates responses and spike-field coherence in error trials.
Figure 6: Effect of attention on V4 LFP power in error trials.
Figure 7: Effect of vertical distracters on neuronal responses and LFP gamma power.

References

  1. Rossi, A.F., Bichot, N.P., Desimone, R. & Ungerleider, L.G. Top down attentional deficits in macaques with lesions of lateral prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 27, 11306–11314 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Duncan, J. Disorganization of behavior after frontal-lobe damage. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 3, 271–290 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Heilman, K.M. & Valenstein, E. Frontal lobe neglect in man. Neurology 22, 660–664 (1972).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mesulam, M.M. A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect. Ann. Neurol. 10, 309–325 (1981).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Buschman, T.J. & Miller, E.K. Top-down versus bottom-up control of attention in the prefrontal and posterior parietal cortices. Science 315, 1860–1862 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Everling, S., Tinsley, C.J., Gaffan, D. & Duncan, J. Filtering of neural signals by focused attention in the monkey prefrontal cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 671–676 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gregoriou, G.G., Gotts, S.J., Zhou, H. & Desimone, R. High frequency long range coupling between prefrontal cortex and visual cortex during attention. Science 324, 1207–1210 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Thompson, K.G., Bichot, N.P. & Schall, J.D. Dissociation of visual discrimination from saccade programming in macaque frontal eye field. J. Neurophysiol. 77, 1046–1050 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kastner, S. & Ungerleider, L.G. Mechanisms of visual attention in the human cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 23, 315–341 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Corbetta, M. & Shulman, G.L. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 201–215 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Desimone, R. & Duncan, J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 18, 193–222 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ekstrom, L.B., Roelfsema, P.R., Arsenault, J.T., Bonmassar, G. & Vanduffel, W. Bottom-up dependent gating of frontal signals in early visual cortex. Science 321, 414–417 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Moore, T. & Armstrong, K.M. Selective gating of visual signals by microstimulation of frontal cortex. Nature 421, 370–373 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Noudoost, B. & Moore, T. Control of visual cortical signals by prefrontal dopamine. Nature 474, 372–375 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Reynolds, J.H., Chelazzi, L. & Desimone, R. Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. J. Neurosci. 19, 1736–1753 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bichot, N.P., Rossi, A.F. & Desimone, R. Parallel and serial neural mechanisms for visual search in macaque area V4. Science 308, 529–534 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fries, P., Reynolds, J.H., Rorie, A.E. & Desimone, R. Modulation of oscillatory neuronal synchronization by selective visual attention. Science 291, 1560–1563 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fries, P., Womelsdorf, T., Oostenveld, R. & Desimone, R. The effects of visual stimulation and selective visual attention on rhythmic neuronal synchronization in macaque area V4. J. Neurosci. 28, 4823–4835 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Gregoriou, G.G., Gotts, S.J. & Desimone, R. Cell type–specific synchronization of neural activity in FEF with V4 during attention. Neuron 73, 581–594 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Saalmann, Y.B., Pigarev, I.N. & Vidyasagar, T.R. Neural mechanisms of visual attention: how top-down feedback highlights relevant locations. Science 316, 1612–1615 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Taylor, K., Mandon, S., Freiwald, W.A. & Kreiter, A.K. Coherent oscillatory activity in monkey area v4 predicts successful allocation of attention. Cereb. Cortex 15, 1424–1437 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mitchell, J.F., Sundberg, K.A. & Reynolds, J.H. Spatial attention decorrelates intrinsic activity fluctuations in macaque area V4. Neuron 63, 879–888 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Cohen, M.R. & Maunsell, J.H. Attention improves performance primarily by reducing interneuronal correlations. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 1594–1600 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zohary, E., Shadlen, M.N. & Newsome, W.T. Correlated neuronal discharge rate and its implications for psychophysical performance. Nature 370, 140–143 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zanto, T.P., Rubens, M.T., Thangavel, A. & Gazzaley, A. Causal role of the prefrontal cortex in top-down modulation of visual processing and working memory. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 656–661 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor, P.C., Nobre, A.C. & Rushworth, M.F. FEF TMS affects visual cortical activity. Cereb. Cortex 17, 391–399 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Barceló, F., Suwazono, S. & Knight, R.T. Prefrontal modulation of visual processing in humans. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 399–403 (2000).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Womelsdorf, T., Fries, P., Mitra, P.P. & Desimone, R. Gamma-band synchronization in visual cortex predicts speed of change detection. Nature 439, 733–736 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gregoriou, G.G., Gotts, S.J., Zhou, H. & Desimone, R. Long-range neural coupling through synchronization with attention. Prog. Brain Res. 176, 35–45 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Saalmann, Y.B., Pinsk, M.A., Wang, L., Li, X. & Kastner, S. The pulvinar regulates information transmission between cortical areas based on attention demands. Science 337, 753–756 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Fries, P. A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 474–480 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gieselmann, M.A. & Thiele, A. Comparison of spatial integration and surround suppression characteristics in spiking activity and the local field potential in macaque V1. Eur. J. Neurosci. 28, 447–459 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ray, S. & Maunsell, J.H. Differences in gamma frequencies across visual cortex restrict their possible use in computation. Neuron 67, 885–896 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Engel, A.K. & Fries, P. Beta-band oscillations—signaling the status quo? Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 20, 156–165 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chao, L.L. & Knight, R.T. Human prefrontal lesions increase distractibility to irrelevant sensory inputs. Neuroreport 6, 1605–1610 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Suzuki, M. & Gottlieb, J. Distinct neural mechanisms of distractor suppression in the frontal and parietal lobe. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 98–104 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yeterian, E.H., Pandya, D.N., Tomaiuolo, F. & Petrides, M. The cortical connectivity of the prefrontal cortex in the monkey brain. Cortex 48, 58–81 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Andersen, R.A., Asanuma, C., Essick, G. & Siegel, R.M. Corticocortical connections of anatomically and physiologically defined subdivisions within the inferior parietal lobule. J. Comp. Neurol. 296, 65–113 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cavada, C. & Goldman-Rakic, P.S. Posterior parietal cortex in rhesus monkey. II. Evidence for segregated corticocortical networks linking sensory and limbic areas with the frontal lobe. J. Comp. Neurol. 287, 422–445 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ninomiya, T., Sawamura, H., Inoue, K. & Takada, M. Segregated pathways carrying frontally derived top-down signals to visual areas MT and V4 in macaques. J. Neurosci. 32, 6851–6858 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Webster, M.J., Bachevalier, J. & Ungerleider, L.G. Connections of inferior temporal areas TEO and TE with parietal and frontal cortex in macaque monkeys. Cereb. Cortex 4, 470–483 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rempel-Clower, N.L. & Barbas, H. The laminar pattern of connections between prefrontal and anterior temporal cortices in the Rhesus monkey is related to cortical structure and function. Cereb. Cortex 10, 851–865 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jenkins, W.M. & Merzenich, M.M. Reorganization of neocortical representations after brain injury: a neurophysiological model of the bases of recovery from stroke. Prog. Brain Res. 71, 249–266 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zénon, A. & Krauzlis, R.J. Attention deficits without cortical neuronal deficits. Nature 489, 434–437 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Ungerleider, L.G., Galkin, T.W., Desimone, R. & Gattass, R. Cortical connections of area V4 in the macaque. Cereb. Cortex 18, 477–499 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cutrell, E.B. & Marrocco, R.T. Electrical microstimulation of primate posterior parietal cortex initiates orienting and alerting components of covert attention. Exp. Brain Res. 144, 103–113 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wardak, C., Olivier, E. & Duhamel, J.R. A deficit in covert attention after parietal cortex inactivation in the monkey. Neuron 42, 501–508 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Petersen, S.E., Robinson, D.L. & Keys, W. Pulvinar nuclei of the behaving rhesus monkey: visual responses and their modulation. J. Neurophysiol. 54, 867–886 (1985).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shipp, S. The brain circuitry of attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 223–230 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gattass, R., Galkin, T.W., Desimone, R. & Ungerleider, L.G. Subcortical connections of area V4 in the macaque. J. Comp. Neurol. 522, 1941–1965 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Judge, S.J., Richmond, B.J. & Chu, F.C. Implantation of magnetic search coils for measurements of eye position: an improved method. Vision Res. 20, 535–538 (1980).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Huang, N.E. et al. The empirical mode decomposition and the Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis. Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 454, 903–995 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jarvis, M.R. & Mitra, P.P. Sampling properties of the spectrum and coherency of sequences of action potentials. Neural Comput. 13, 717–749 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G. Pielli for help with the animal training and R. Saunders for assistance with the surgical procedures. This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Research Program and US National Institutes of Health grant R01EY017292 (R.D.). G.G.G. was partially supported by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (Grant PIRG05-GA-2009-246761).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Georgia G Gregoriou

  2. Institute of Applied and Computational Mathematics, Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Georgia G Gregoriou

  3. Division of Neuroscience and Basic Behavioral Science, National Institute of Mental Health, US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Andrew F Rossi

  4. Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Leslie G Ungerleider

  5. McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Robert Desimone

Authors
  1. Georgia G Gregoriou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew F Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leslie G Ungerleider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Desimone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.G.G., A.F.R., L.G.U. and R.D. designed the experiment, G.G.G. and A.F.R. acquired the data, G.G.G. analyzed the data, and G.G.G. and R.D. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgia G Gregoriou.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Relationship between selectivity and sensory interactions and effect of attention on sensory interactions.

(a) Relationship between sensory interaction indices (abscissa, SI) and selectivity indices (ordinate, SE) with attention away from the receptive field, in the intact hemisphere. (b) Same neuronal population as in a but with attention directed to stimulus 1. Responses to the pair show a greater influence of stimulus 1, as reflected by the increase in the slope of the regression line that describes the SE, SI relationship (Attend away, slope: 0.53 Attend stim 1, slope: 0.71). (c) Same neuronal population as in a and b but with attention directed to stimulus 2. In this case responses to the pair show a greater influence of stimulus 2, as reflected by the decrease in the slope of the regression line that describes the SE, SI relationship (Attend away, slope: 0.53 Attend stim 2, slope: 0.38). (d) Relationship between sensory interaction indices and selectivity indices with attention away from the receptive field, in the lesion-affected hemisphere. (e) Same neuronal population as in d but with attention directed to stimulus 1. Responses to the pair show a greater influence of stimulus 1, as reflected by the increase in the slope of the regression line that describes the SE, SI relationship (Attend away, slope: 0.55 Attend stim 1, slope: 0.70). (f) Same neuronal population as in e and d but with attention directed to stimulus 2. In this case responses to the pair show a greater influence of stimulus 2, as reflected by the decrease in the slope of the regression line that describes the SE, SI relationship (Attend away, slope: 0.55 Attend stim 2, slope: 0.51). All visually responsive neurons are included, each contributing one data point. Green circles correspond to data from monkey 1 and blue circles to data from monkey 2. Slopes and correlation coefficients (r) are reported for each graph. Responses were computed within a window from 150 to 300 ms following stimulus onset.

Supplementary Figure 2 Distribution of attentional effects on firing rate in V4.

Distribution of mean normalized firing rate averaged in a window 150-300 ms following the array onset with attention outside (y-axis) and attention inside (x-axis) the RF of the recorded neurons in the control (a) and lesion (b) hemisphere. Points above the diagonal indicate a positive attentional effect (higher response with attention) whereas points below the diagonal indicate a negative attentional effect (lower responses with attention). Each point represents one neuron. Green circles correspond to data from monkey 1 and blue circles to data from monkey 2.

Supplementary Figure 3 Distribution of attentional effects on LFP power in V4.

(a,b) Distribution of mean LFP gamma power (averaged between 50-90 Hz) calculated within a window 200-300 ms following the array onset with attention outside (y-axis) and attention inside (x-axis) the RF in the control (a) and lesion (b) hemisphere. (c,d) Distribution of mean LFP beta power (averaged between 15-30 Hz) calculated within a window 200-300 ms following the array onset with attention inside (y-axis) and attention outside (x-axis) the RF in the control (c) and lesion (d) hemisphere. Points above the diagonal indicate a positive attentional effect (higher power with attention) whereas points below the diagonal indicate a negative attentional effect (lower power with attention). Other conventions as in Supplementary Figure 2.

Supplementary Figure 4 Distribution of attentional effects on spike-LFP coherence in V4.

(a,b) Distribution of mean gamma spike-LFP coherence (averaged between 50-90 Hz) calculated within a window 200-400 ms following the array onset with attention inside (y-axis) and attention outside (x-axis) the RF in the control (a) and lesion (b) hemisphere. (c,d) Distribution of mean beta coherence (averaged between 15-30 Hz) calculated within a window 200-400 ms following the array onset with attention inside (y-axis) and attention outside (x-axis) the RF in the control (c) and lesion (d) hemisphere. Points above the diagonal indicate a positive attentional effect (higher coherence with attention) whereas points below the diagonal indicate a negative attentional effect (lower coherence with attention). Other conventions as in Supplementary Figure 2.

Supplementary Figure 5 Distribution of attentional effects on firing rates, LFP power and spike-LFP coherence in V4 in correct and error trials.

(a) Cumulative distributions of attentional indices computed for firing rates in the control and lesion-affected hemisphere for correct and error trials. (b,c) Cumulative distributions of attentional indices for gamma SFC averaged over 50-90 Hz (b) and beta SFC averaged over 15-30 Hz (c) for the control and lesion-affected hemisphere in correct and incorrect trials. (d) Cumulative distributions of attentional indices computed for gamma power in the control and lesion-affected hemisphere in correct and incorrect trials. (e) Cumulative distributions of attentional indices computed for beta power in the control and lesion-affected hemisphere in correct and incorrect trials. In all plots red lines illustrate data from the control hemisphere, blue lines data from the lesion-affected hemisphere, solid lines data from correct trials and dashed lines data from incorrect trials.

Supplementary Figure 6 Effect of attention on firing rates, gamma and beta LFP power and coherence in the control and lesion-affected hemispheres limiting analysis to trials from conditions with similar performance in the two hemifields.

(a) Normalized population average firing rates from the control hemisphere. At the population level, activity was enhanced with attention by 18.5%, 150-300 ms post- stimuli onset (16.9%, 200-300 ms post-stimuli onset; Wilcoxon sign-rank test, p < 0.001 in both cases). (b) Normalized population average firing rates from the lesion-affected hemisphere. At the population level, activity was enhanced with attention by 9.7%, 150-300 ms, post-stimuli onset (10.4%, 200-300 ms post-stimuli, Wilcoxon sign-rank test, p < 0.01 in both cases) (c) Cumulative distributions of attentional indices computed from firing rates for the control (solid line) and lesion-affected (dashed line) hemisphere. Attentional modulation of firing rates was significantly lower in the lesion affected side (150-300 ms post-stimuli: control hemisphere: median AIFR = 0.09, lesion-affected hemisphere: median AIFR = 0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test p < 0.001; 200-300 ms post-stimuli: control hemisphere: median AIFR = 0.09, lesion-affected hemisphere: median AIFR = 0.04, Wilcoxon rank-sum test p < 0.001). (d,e) Normalized LFP gamma power averaged between 50-90 Hz in the control (d) and lesion-affected (e) hemisphere. At the population level, we found a significant attentional enhancement of LFP power in gamma frequencies between 50 and 90 Hz in both hemispheres (average power 200-300 ms, 225-325 ms post-stimuli onset, paired t-test, p < 0.001 in all four cases). Gamma power was enhanced by 14.5% in the intact hemisphere and by 7% in the lesion-affected hemisphere (12.6% and 7%, respectively, 225-325 ms post-stimuli onset). (f) Cumulative distributions of attentional indices in gamma power for the control (solid line) and lesion-affected (dashed line) hemisphere. Attentional indices (AIpowergamma) were significantly lower in the lesion-affected hemisphere (200-300 ms post-stimuli: median AIpowergamma control: 0.07, lesion: 0.03; 225-325 ms post-stimuli: median AIpowergamma control: 0.06, lesion: 0.03; Wilcoxon rank-sum test p < 0.01 in both cases). (g,h) Normalized LFP beta power averaged between 15-30 Hz in the control (g) and lesion-affected (h) hemisphere. Beta power was significantly reduced with attention in the control hemisphere (average power 200-300 ms and 225-325 ms post stimuli onset, paired t-test, p < 0.001 in both cases; 200-300 ms post stimuli onset: 3.9% decrease, 225-325 ms post stimuli onset: 3% decrease with attention at the population level) and was not significantly modulated by attention in the lesion-affected hemisphere (paired t-test, 200-300 ms post stimuli onset: p=0.17, 1.4% increase with attention at the population level; 225-325 ms post stimuli onset: p=0.08, 2% increase with attention). (i) Cumulative distributions of attentional indices in beta power for the control (solid line) and lesion-affected (dashed line) hemisphere. Attentional indices (AIpowerbeta) were significantly lower in the control hemisphere (200-300 ms post stimuli onset: median AIpowerbeta control: -0.02, lesion: 0.01; 225-325 ms post stimuli onset: median AIpowerbeta control: -0.013, lesion: 0.006; Wilcoxon rank-sum test p < 0.001). (j,k) Spike-LFP coherence (SFC) in the control (j) and lesion-affected (k) hemisphere. SFC was significantly enhanced with attention in the gamma frequency range (50-90 Hz) in both hemipsheres (control hemisphere: 11.6% increase with attention, paired t-test, p < 0.001; lesion-affected hemisphere: 6% increase with attention, paired t-test, p < 0.01). Moreover, beta SFC was significantly reduced with attention in the control hemisphere and the effect was only marginal in the lesion-affected hemisphere (control: 10% decrease with attention, paired t-test p < 0.001; lesion-affected hemisphere: 5.8% decrease with attention, paired t-test p = 0.065). (l) Cumulative distribution of attentional indices for gamma coherence (averaged between 50 and 90 Hz) in the control (solid line) and lesion (dashed line) hemisphere. The attentional modulation of coherence between 50 and 90 Hz was significantly lower in the lesion-affected hemisphere compared to the intact hemisphere (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p < 0.05, median AIcohgamma, control: 0.08, lesion: 0.02). Responses in a,b,d,e,g,h,j,k are aligned on the presentation of the stimuli array. Red lines correspond to responses when the target stimulus appeared inside the RF of the recorded neurons and the black line corresponds to responses when the target stimulus appeared outside the RF. Shaded areas represent mean ± s.e.m.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–6 (PDF 1802 kb)

Supplementary Methods Checklist

(PDF 494 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gregoriou, G., Rossi, A., Ungerleider, L. et al. Lesions of prefrontal cortex reduce attentional modulation of neuronal responses and synchrony in V4. Nat Neurosci 17, 1003–1011 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3742

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3742

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing