Is there a ubiquitous spectrolaminar motif of local field potential power across primate neocortex?

Mendoza-Halliday, Major et al. ¹ (referred to as “Mendoza-Halliday et al.” for brevity), advocate for a local field potential (LFP)-based approach to functional identification of cortical layers during “laminar” (simultaneous recordings from all cortical layers) multielectrode recordings in nonhuman primates (NHPs). They describe a “ubiquitous spectrolaminar motif” in the primate neocortex: 1) 75-150 Hz power peaks in the supragranular layers, 2) 10-19 Hz power peaks in the infragranular layers and 3) the crossing point of their laminar power gradients identifies Layer 4 (L4). Identification of L4 is critical in general, but especially for Mendoza-Halliday et al . as the “motif” discovery is couched within a framework whose central hypothesis is that gamma activity originates in the supragranular layers and reflects feedforward activity, while alpha-beta activity originates in the infragranular layers and reflects feedback activity. In an impressive scientific effort, Mendoza-Halliday et al . analyzed laminar data from 14 cortical areas in 2 prior macaque studies and compared them to marmoset, mouse, and human data to further bolster the canonical nature of the motif. Identification of such canonical principles of brain operation is clearly a topic of broad scientific interest. Similarly, a reliable online method for L4 identification would be of broad scientific value for the rapidly increasing use of laminar recordings using numerous evolving technologies. Despite Mendoza-Halliday et al .’s paper’s strengths, and its potential for scientific impact, a series of concerns that are fundamental to the analysis and interpretation of laminar activity profile data in general, and local field potential (LFP) signals in particular, led us to question its conclusions. Here, we address four key questions: Q1 ) Is the spectrolaminar motif ubiquitous, i.e. “found everywhere” or “universal”? Q2 ) Do features of the motif reliably identify Layer (L) 4? Q3 ) Are Mendoza-Halliday et al.’s newly introduced methods (FLIP and vFLIP) reliable? And Q4 ) Are the proposed biophysical mechanisms underlying the motif well justified? We used new sets of data comprised of stimulus-evoked laminar response profiles from primary and higher-order auditory cortices (A1 and belt cortex), and primary visual cortex (V1) to test these questions. The rationale for using these areas as a test bed for new methods is that, in contrast to higher-order cortical areas, their laminar anatomy and physiology have already been extensively characterized by prior studies, and there is general agreement across laboratories on key matters like L4 identification. In short, we find that Mendoza-Halliday et al.’ s findings do not generalize well to these cortical areas. Specifically, regarding Q1 : Though we can find a spectrolaminar gradient that is qualitatively consistent with Mendoza-Halliday et al ., it is quantifiable in only 61-64% of our recordings, indicating that the motif is common but by no means universal (see “ Evaluation of the FLIP method […]” and “ Evaluation of vFLIP […]”). Regarding Q2 : The motif’s high/low frequency gradient cross point identified L4 in only 29-33% of our recordings. Regarding Q3: FLIP and vFLIP exhibit marked variability across studies, across brain areas, and spuriously detect cortical layer inversions (see “ FLIP’s fitting process […]” and “ Evaluation of vFLIP […]”). Regarding Q4: the biophysical modeling findings cited to support Mendoza-Halliday’s conclusions (see “ Going forward – in silico […]”) do not reproduce the LFP data trends. While our findings are in many respects at odds with those of Mendoza-Halliday et al ., the paper already has, and will continue to spark debate and further experimentation. Hopefully this countervailing presentation will lead to robust collegial efforts to define optimal strategies for applying laminar recording methods in future studies.