Cited by 324Multisensory perception and integrationVisual perception and processing mechanismsTactile and Sensory Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 28 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Decoding Sound and Imagery Content in Early Visual Cortex

Open access

Abstract

Human early visual cortex was traditionally thought to process simple visual features such as orientation, contrast, and spatial frequency via feedforward input from the lateral geniculate nucleus (e.g., [1]). However, the role of nonretinal influence on early visual cortex is so far insufficiently investigated despite much evidence that feedback connections greatly outnumber feedforward connections [2-5]. Here, we explored in five fMRI experiments how information originating from audition and imagery affects the brain activity patterns in early visual cortex in the absence of any feedforward visual stimulation. We show that category-specific information from both complex natural sounds and imagery can be read out from early visual cortex activity in blindfolded participants. The coding of nonretinal information in the activity patterns of early visual cortex is common across actual auditory perception and imagery and may be mediated by higher-level multisensory areas. Furthermore, this coding is robust to mild manipulations of attention and working memory but affected by orthogonal, cognitively demanding visuospatial processing. Crucially, the information fed down to early visual cortex is category specific and generalizes to sound exemplars of the same category, providing evidence for abstract information feedback rather than precise pictorial feedback. Our results suggest that early visual cortex receives nonretinal input from other brain areas when it is generated by auditory perception and/or imagery, and this input carries common abstract information. Our findings are compatible with feedback of predictive information to the earliest visual input level (e.g., [6]), in line with predictive coding models [7-10].

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using fMRI and multivariate pattern analysis in blindfolded participants, this paper shows that category-specific information from natural sounds and auditory imagery can be decoded from early visual cortex activity without feedforward visual stimulation. The feedback appears abstract/categorical rather than pictorial, is robust to mild attention/working-memory interference, and is disrupted by demanding visuospatial processing.

Key findings

  • In experiment 1, a linear SVM discriminated three natural sounds (bird singing, traffic noise, talking crowd) from early visual cortex, particularly V2 and V3, at about 42%; classification also succeeded in auditory cortex but not motor cortex.
  • In experiment 2, imagined sounds were decoded from V1 and auditory cortex, and cross-classification between sound perception and imagery succeeded in V1 and V2, indicating shared activity patterns across real and imagined sounds.
  • In experiment 3, decoding during natural sound stimulation remained successful mainly in peripheral regions and consistently in V2 despite an orthogonal auditory working-memory task; in experiment 4, a demanding visuospatial imagery task left only residual above-chance classification in far-peripheral V2.
  • In experiment 5, “human” versus “inanimate” sound categories were classified in several early visual areas for eight out of nine exemplar combinations, and cross-classification across different exemplars within a category succeeded in V2 and V3 in two out of three combinations, supporting abstract/categorical feedback rather than precise pictorial reinstatement.

Methods

  • Five fMRI experiments with blindfolded participants omitted visual stimulation while subjects listened to natural sounds, imagined sounds from word cues, or performed orthogonal cognitive tasks during sound stimulation.
  • Activity patterns were extracted from retinotopically mapped V1, V2, and V3 and analyzed with multivariate pattern classification, primarily a linear support vector machine; whole-brain searchlight analyses identified other regions carrying sound/imagery content.
  • Univariate GLM analyses tested whether decoding was driven by positive activation or deactivation; cross-classification tested generalization between perception and imagery and across sound exemplars within categories.

Limitations

  • The paper states that classification accuracies were relatively low, describing the results as proof of principle and robust across subject and stimulus samples.
  • The paper notes that without feedforward stimulation, it is difficult to study the functional role of nonretinal feedback in actual visual perception.
  • The paper states that whether the proposed pathways play a causal role in inducing differential activity patterns remains to be investigated; the provided text also does not report exact sample sizes per experiment.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.020

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 28 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 20 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 24
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 5
25 of 25
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The word cues “forest,” “traffic,” and “people” reliably elicit the intended mental imagery of the corresponding sounds and natural scenes in subjects.

    “Subjects were instructed to engage in mental imagery of the sounds and a corresponding natural scene.”
    “runs in which subjects solely imagined the sounds upon hearing the word cues “forest,” “traffic,” or “people””
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Vetter, P., Smith, F. W., & Muckli, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Vetter, Petra
  • Muckli, Lars
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
24
Issue
11
Pages
1256-1262
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016034937
Cited by
323
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 6
FWCI
32.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • College of Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/G005044/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
early visual cortex, auditory imagery, auditory perception, top-down feedback, multisensory integration, predictive coding, abstract information, visuospatial processing, attention, working memory, blindfolded participants
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Auditory Perception, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Memory, Short-Term, Photic Stimulation, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review