The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Representation and integration of multiple sensory inputs in primate superior colliculus
Abstract
1. The properties of visual-, auditory-, and somatosensory-responsive neurons, as well as of neurons responsive to multiple sensory cues (i.e., multisensory), were examined in the superior colliculus of the rhesus monkey. Although superficial layer neurons responded exclusively to visual stimuli and visual inputs predominated in deeper layers, there was also a rich nonvisual and multisensory representation in the superior colliculus. More than a quarter (27.8%) of the deep layer population responded to stimuli from more than a single sensory modality. In contrast, 37% responded only to visual cues, 17.6% to auditory cues, and 17.6% to somatosensory cues. Unimodal- and multisensory-responsive neurons were clustered by modality. Each of these modalities was represented in map-like fashion, and the different representations were in alignment with one another. 2. Most deep layer visually responsive neurons were binocular and exhibited poor selectivity for such stimulus characteristics as orientation, velocity, and direction of movement. Similarly, most auditory-responsive neurons had contralateral receptive fields and were binaural, but had little frequency selectivity and preferred complex, broad-band sounds. Somatosensory-responsive neurons were overwhelmingly contralateral, high velocity, and rapidly adapting. Only rarely did somatosensory-responsive neurons require distortion of subcutaneous tissue for activation. 3. The spatial congruence among the different receptive fields of multisensory neurons was a critical feature underlying their ability to synthesize cross-modal information. 4. Combinations of stimuli could have very different consequences in the same neuron, depending on their temporal and spatial relationships. Generally, multisensory interactions were evident when pairs of stimuli were separated from one another by < 500 ms, and the products of these interactions far exceeded the sum of their unimodal components. Whether the combination of stimuli produced response enhancement, response depression, or no interaction depended on the location of the stimuli relative to one another and to their respective receptive fields. Maximal response enhancements were observed when stimuli originated from similar locations in space (as when derived from the same event) because they fell within the excitatory receptive fields of the same multisensory neurons. If, however, the stimuli were spatially disparate such that one fell beyond the excitatory borders of its receptive field, either no interaction was produced or this stimulus depressed the effectiveness of the other. Furthermore, maximal response interactions were seen with the pairing of weakly effective unimodal stimuli. As the individual unimodal stimuli became increasingly effective, the levels of response enhancement to stimulus combinations declined, a principle referred to as inverse effectiveness. Many of the integrative principles seen here in the primate superior colliculus are strikingly similar to those observed in the cat. These observations indicate that a set of common principles of multisensory integration is adaptable in widely divergent species living in very different ecological situations. 5. Surprisingly, a few multisensory neurons had individual receptive fields that were not in register with one another. This has not been noted in multisensory neurons of other species, and these "anomalous" receptive fields could present a daunting problem: stimuli originating from the same general location in space cannot simultaneously fall within their respective receptive fields, a stimulus pairing that may result in response depression. Conversely, stimuli that originate from separate events and disparate locations (and fall within their receptive fields) may result in response enhancement. However, the spatial principle of multisensory integration did not apply in these cases. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Multisensory integration: current issues from the perspective of the single neuron
Stein, B. E., & Stanford, T. R. (2008) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2331 · Cited by 1,598
Self-citationGiard, M. H., & Peronnet, F. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/089892999563544 · Cited by 1,072
Crossmodal Processing in the Human Brain: Insights from Functional Neuroimaging Studies
Calvert, G. A. (2001) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/11.12.1110 · Cited by 1,012
Calvert, G. A., Campbell, R., & Brammer, M. J. (2000) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00513-3 · Cited by 954
Pip and pop: Nonspatial auditory signals improve spatial visual search.
Van der Burg, E., Olivers, C. N. L., Bronkhorst, A. W., & Theeuwes, J. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1053 · Cited by 485
Metadata
- Authors
- Wallace, M. T., Wilkinson, L. K., & Stein, B. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 1996-08-01
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1246-1266
- ISSN
- 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1598
- OpenAlex
- W1796794609
- Cited by
- 412
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Representation and integration of multiple sensory inputs in primate superior colliculus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/jn.1996.76.2.1246
- The paper
- Wallace, M. T., Wilkinson, L. K., & Stein, B. E. (1996). Representation and integration of multiple sensory inputs in primate superior colliculus. Journal of Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1996.76.2.1246
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.