Retinotopic coding organizes the interaction between internally and externally oriented brain networks
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This study addresses an important question about how large-scale brain networks interact, and specifically how the default mode network exchanges information with the sensory cortex. The analyses are sophisticated, but at present provide incomplete evidence for the claims made in the paper.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
The human brain seamlessly integrates internally generated thoughts with incoming sensory information, yet the large-scale networks that support these functions -- the (Default Network, DN) and external (Dorsal Attention Network, dATN) -- are traditionally viewed as functionally antagonistic. This raises a crucial question: how does the brain integrate information across these seemingly opposed systems? Here, using densely sampled 7T fMRI, individualized resting-state parcellations, and voxel-wise population-receptive-field mapping, we show that these internal/external networks are more interlocked than previously thought. Although spontaneous DN and dATN activity during rest is uncorrelated at the network level, functional coupling across networks is shaped by the latent visual field preferences of individual voxels in each network, as measured during independent retinotopic mapping. Voxels that share visual field preferences exhibit stronger spontaneous coupling than those with divergent preferences. These retinotopically-specific interactions are bivalent: DN voxels with negative (suppressive) visual response amplitudes are anticorrelated with matched (positive) dATN voxels, while those with positive response amplitudes are positively correlated. Thus, distinct subpopulations of visually-tuned DN voxels participate in spatially-specific interactions with the dATN. Further, retinotopic coding is intrinsic to the DN, persisting even during periods of elevated top-down drive from the DN to the dATN. These findings challenge the prevailing view of global DN-dATN antagonism, revealing a latent, voxel-level architecture of retinotopically-grounded interactions. Taken together, our results suggest that retinotopic coding underpins the dynamic coordination of perception and thought in the human brain.
Article activity feed
-
eLife Assessment
This study addresses an important question about how large-scale brain networks interact, and specifically how the default mode network exchanges information with the sensory cortex. The analyses are sophisticated, but at present provide incomplete evidence for the claims made in the paper.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
This paper leverages 7T fMRI data from the Natural Scenes Dataset to investigate whether retinotopic coding, the position-selective organization of visual response structures, spontaneous resting-state interactions between the Default Network (DN) and the Dorsal Attention Network (dATN). Using individualized network parcellations and population receptive field (pRF) modeling, the authors show that DN voxels can be split into two subpopulations based on their response to visual stimulation: those with position-specific positive BOLD responses (+pRFs) and those with position-specific negative BOLD responses (-pRFs). Critically, these subpopulations relate differently to the dATN during rest: -pRFs are anticorrelated with the dATN, +pRFs are positively correlated, and non-retinotopic DN voxels show no …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
This paper leverages 7T fMRI data from the Natural Scenes Dataset to investigate whether retinotopic coding, the position-selective organization of visual response structures, spontaneous resting-state interactions between the Default Network (DN) and the Dorsal Attention Network (dATN). Using individualized network parcellations and population receptive field (pRF) modeling, the authors show that DN voxels can be split into two subpopulations based on their response to visual stimulation: those with position-specific positive BOLD responses (+pRFs) and those with position-specific negative BOLD responses (-pRFs). Critically, these subpopulations relate differently to the dATN during rest: -pRFs are anticorrelated with the dATN, +pRFs are positively correlated, and non-retinotopic DN voxels show no coupling. The anticorrelation (and positive correlation) is enhanced when DN and dATN voxels share visual field preferences. An event-triggered analysis suggests that retinotopic coding shapes both "top-down" (DN-initiated) and "bottom-up" (dATN-initiated) spontaneous activity transients, supporting the claim that the retinotopic scaffold is intrinsic to the DN. These findings challenge the prevailing view of global DN-dATN antagonism and suggest retinotopic coding as an organizing principle for cross-network communication.
Strengths:
The central finding that what looks like network-level independence between DN and dATN decomposes into structured, bivalent interactions organized by voxel-level visual field preferences is a compelling demonstration that macro-scale network descriptions can hide meaningful substructure. The logic of the analysis is clean: pRF properties are estimated from retinotopic mapping data and then used to predict resting-state coupling in completely independent scanning sessions. This cross-session, cross-modality design rules out many circularity concerns.
The use of individualized multi-session hierarchical Bayesian parcellation (Kong et al.) to define DN and dATN boundaries within each subject is the right methodological choice for this question. Network boundaries in posterior cortex, where DN and dATN interdigitate most closely, vary considerably across individuals, and group-average approaches would introduce exactly the kind of misassignment that would most confound the result.
The matched-vs-random pRF analysis is well-controlled. The authors demonstrate that cortical distance between matched and randomly-matched dATN pRFs does not differ, effectively ruling out spatial proximity on the cortical surface as a confound. tSNR controls further show that signal quality differences do not drive the effect.
The event-triggered analysis (Figure 3) is creative and adds genuine value. Showing that retinotopically-specific coupling persists during DN-initiated activity transients, not only dATN-initiated ones, is the key piece of evidence for the claim that the code is intrinsic to the DN rather than passively inherited through bottom-up visual drive.
The result is observed consistently across all individual participants, which provides strong evidence for the robustness of the qualitative pattern despite the small sample size inherent to densely-sampled designs.
Weaknesses
(1) The nature of negative pRFs requires more scrutiny
The entire interpretive framework depends on treating negative pRFs in the DN as genuine position-selective neural responses (suppression). However, negative BOLD signals are well known to arise from non-neural sources, specifically, vascular stealing (where activation in nearby tissue diverts blood from adjacent voxels) and macrovascular draining vein effects that produce spatially displaced signal inversions. These concerns are amplified at 7T, where T2*-weighted GE-EPI carries substantial macrovascular weighting. The DN and dATN interdigitate extensively in the posterior cortex, often within millimeters. A negative pRF in a DN voxel adjacent to a positive dATN voxel could, in principle, reflect the hemodynamic shadow of its neighbor rather than an independent neural response.
The spatial dispersion control (matched vs. random pRFs have similar cortical distribution) is valuable but addresses long-range confounds, not *local* hemodynamic crosstalk. The reliability of sign and center position across runs is reassuring but does not exclude a vascular origin, as vascular architecture is itself stable across sessions. I would encourage the authors to test whether the matched-vs-random effect survives exclusion of voxels near large pial vessels (identifiable from T2* contrast or the venograms available in the NSD). These analyses would not be dispositive, but they would meaningfully strengthen the neural interpretation.
(2) Amount of retinotopic mapping data and choice of pRF pipeline
The NSD includes 6 runs of retinotopic mapping (~5 minutes each; 3 bar-aperture, 3 wedge/ring). The authors use only the 3 bar-aperture runs (~15 minutes total per subject) and fit their own pRFs using AFNI's 3dNLfim procedure, rather than using the pRF estimates provided as part of the NSD release (which were fitted using the analyzePRF toolbox with all 6 runs).
Fifteen minutes of bar data is quite limited for reliable voxel-wise pRF estimation, especially in regions far from the early visual cortex, where signal-to-noise is inherently lower. Standard recommendations for robust pRF mapping in higher-order regions generally suggest substantially more data. The variance-explained threshold is close to the noise floor by design, meaning that a non-trivial number of the "retinotopic" DN voxels may be poorly estimated. Given that the core analyses depend on both the sign and the center position of these pRFs, the limited data is a significant concern.
The authors do not explain why they chose to re-fit pRFs rather than use the NSD-provided estimates. If the motivation was methodological (e.g., the NSD pRF pipeline does not readily yield signed amplitude, or the bar-only fits were judged more appropriate for detecting negative responses), this should be made explicit. If the NSD-provided pRFs can reproduce the key findings, this would substantially increase confidence in the results. If they cannot, that divergence itself would be important to understand. I would ask the authors to address this choice and, if feasible, to report whether the core results replicate using the NSD-provided pRF estimates and/or whether using all 6 runs of retinotopy data changes the findings.
(3) pRF model adequacy for the Default Network
The isotropic Gaussian pRF model was developed for and validated in early and mid-level visual cortex, where it captures the dominant spatial selectivity of neuronal populations. In DN voxels where the model explains comparatively little variance, it is less clear that the model is capturing the right quantity. Specifically, the negative pRFs could conceivably be described by a model with a dominant suppressive surround (e.g., a difference-of-Gaussians model), in which what appears as a "negative pRF" in the standard model is actually the surround component of a center-surround mechanism whose center is poorly resolved. This distinction matters: a genuine inverted code (negative center response) implies a qualitatively different computation than inherited surround suppression from nearby visual cortex.
The authors should consider discussing why the standard model is sufficient for the questions asked, or ideally, testing whether the sign distinction survives under alternative pRF model specifications.
(4) Interpreting resting-state transients as top-down vs. bottom-up
The event-triggered analysis labels high-amplitude DN pRF activations as "top-down events" and dATN activations as "bottom-up events." This is a reasonable inference given experience-sampling studies showing that rest involves alternation between internal and external attention, but it remains an inference. Without concurrent experience sampling, eye-tracking, or physiological monitoring, we cannot establish that a spontaneous DN transient reflects memory retrieval or internally-directed thought rather than a global arousal fluctuation. Similarly, dATN transients during rest could reflect covert shifts of spatial attention to remembered or imagined locations rather than bottom-up processing per se. I would ask the authors to soften this framing or to discuss what additional data would be needed to validate the top-down/bottom-up attribution.
(5) The "retinotopic code" vs. "visual field bias" distinction
The paper uses the language of a "retinotopic code" throughout and correctly distinguishes this from a "retinotopic map," noting that DN voxels do not form a continuous topographic representation on the cortical surface. This distinction deserves greater emphasis. In vision science, retinotopic maps carry computational significance through their topographic continuity and relationship to cortical wiring. A distributed collection of voxels with coarse visual field preferences but no cortical topography is a fundamentally different organizational feature. Recent reviews have drawn an explicit distinction between *retinotopic maps* and *visual field biases* (Groen, Dekker, Knapen & Silson, TiCS 2022), and the present findings may be more accurately characterized as the latter. Perhaps the authors think that the distinction is merely a signal-to-noise distinction, in which case I would invite them to clearly speak to this interpretation. In any case, this is not a criticism of the findings themselves, but clarity on this point would prevent conflation of two different organizational principles and would help position the work for both the vision and network neuroscience communities.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Using a public dataset of retinotopic mapping and resting-state data, the authors find that the default mode network has voxels that respond (positively or negatively) to visual stimulation at specific retinotopic positions, and that resting-state activity in these voxels is correlated with activity in more traditional sensory voxels with the same visual-location preference. The retinotopic specificity is bidirectional, such that high activity in default mode voxels drives activity only in voxels with matching receptive fields in sensory cortex, and vice versa. These findings are at odds with traditional views of the default mode network as having abstract (non-retinotopic) representations and competing (rather than cooperating) with external sensory representations.
Strengths:
This study continues …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Using a public dataset of retinotopic mapping and resting-state data, the authors find that the default mode network has voxels that respond (positively or negatively) to visual stimulation at specific retinotopic positions, and that resting-state activity in these voxels is correlated with activity in more traditional sensory voxels with the same visual-location preference. The retinotopic specificity is bidirectional, such that high activity in default mode voxels drives activity only in voxels with matching receptive fields in sensory cortex, and vice versa. These findings are at odds with traditional views of the default mode network as having abstract (non-retinotopic) representations and competing (rather than cooperating) with external sensory representations.
Strengths:
This study continues an intriguing line of research about how default mode regions interact with the sensory cortex. Demonstrating that there are structured interactions between these regions at rest, and that these interactions are in fact organized according to retinotopic location (as opposed to traditional views of representational format in the default mode network), provides a new framework for thinking about large-scale internal and external brain networks. The authors make use of a well-powered public dataset that allows for precise estimates of pRFs and individual-specific resting-state networks, and develop a number of interesting analyses that characterize the relationships between DN and dATN voxels. The findings are exciting and could have a major impact on future studies in cognitive neuroimaging.
The authors mention that these findings could shed light on internal/external interactions such as "anticipatory saccades or memory-guided attention," which is true, though I would argue that constructing DN representations of external stimuli is in fact even more fundamental than these specific cases (e.g., see Barnett and Bellana, 2025, "Situation models and the default mode network"). The "highways" identified in this study could play a vital role in real-world perceptual processes that are constantly translating external input into internal mental models.
Weaknesses:
(1) The criterion used for defining voxels as retinotopic seems very liberal. The authors show that only 5% of voxels have R^2>0.14 in a null analysis, and therefore define voxels with R^2>0.14 as retinotopic. Although all the networks in 1C show voxel distributions that differ from the null, the number of false positives above R^2>0.14 seems problematic, especially for the DN positive pRFs (red distribution) and to a lesser extent the DN negative pRFs (blue distribution). From visual inspection of the plot, the false discovery rate (fraction of voxels labeled as retinotopic that are false positives) looks like it would be greater than 50% for the DN-positive pRFs. The authors do show that the positive pRF voxels have above-chance consistency across runs, again providing evidence that there are true positive voxels in this set, but perhaps a stricter criterion (such as having consistent negative fits across runs) would provide more targeted identification of the DN voxels with true retinotopic sensitivity.
(2) The claim that "opponency at rest between the DN and dATN appears to be driven by the subset of DN voxels with negative retinotopic tuning" is not well supported. The fraction of DN voxels with negative pRFs is small: 9.42% of DN voxels have pRFs, and 58.77% are negative, so about 6% of DN voxels have negative pRFs. The fact that any DN voxels have negative pRFs is notable, but the authors do not provide evidence that these 6% are driving the overall behavior of the DN. They do show (e.g., in Figure 2B) that negative and positive pRFs have opposing influences, but the overall correlation with dATN does not look similar to the negative pRF connectivity. I'm also unsure whether "opponency" is a reasonable description for two networks that are "independent (i.e., not correlated)" in this analysis.
(3) The event-triggered analysis is effective at testing the bidirectional relationship between DN and dATN, with high activity in either network triggering a response in the other network. However, it would be helpful to show more validation that these "events" are meaningful windows of time to study. First, is 13 TRs a typical length of time that activity is elevated during one of these events? Second, the top-down and bottom-up terminology is perhaps too loaded and not well-justified; if the negative pRFs in the DN reflect a meaningful coding system, then couldn't low (rather than high) activity indicate a top-down event?
(4) The framing of this paper relative to the authors' past week, such as Steel et al. 2024 ("A retinotopic code structures the interaction between perception and memory systems"), could be improved. The existence of negative pRFs in the DN and a functional relationship between these pRFs and the sensory pRFs have already been described in prior work. My understanding of the primary novelty here is that this paper examines resting-state data, showing that there are widespread spontaneous interactions between broad internal and external networks, but this distinction is not made explicit in the Introduction.
(5) The definition of the default mode (DN) in this study aligns with past research, but the definition of the dorsal attention network (dATN) seems at odds with standard terminology. For example, the authors cite Fox et al. 2006, which depicts the dATN as including regions such as IPS, FEF, SMA, and MT+. Here, however, the "dATN" seems to be primarily lateral and ventral visual cortex (e.g., Figure S5). The exact location of these sensory pRFs is not critical to the authors' claims, but this labeling seems incorrect, and the motivation for defining/selecting the sensory network in this way is not described.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This paper addresses an important question (the relationship between DN and dATN, and the role of retinotopic coding) and uses a set of novel analyses.
Strengths:
Important question, novel analytical approaches (pRF-informed functional connectivity analysis).
Weaknesses:
Some of the key claims are not fully supported by the data presented. There is also a concern about over-interpretation of the results. Key issues:
(1) The authors claim that retinotopic coding scaffolds the interaction between DMN and dATN. However, retinotopically tuned voxels account for a mere 9% of DMN voxels. So this appears to be a major overstatement. For instance, the statement that "these findings would position retinotopy as a unifying framework for brain-wide information processing" is not justified given the presented …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This paper addresses an important question (the relationship between DN and dATN, and the role of retinotopic coding) and uses a set of novel analyses.
Strengths:
Important question, novel analytical approaches (pRF-informed functional connectivity analysis).
Weaknesses:
Some of the key claims are not fully supported by the data presented. There is also a concern about over-interpretation of the results. Key issues:
(1) The authors claim that retinotopic coding scaffolds the interaction between DMN and dATN. However, retinotopically tuned voxels account for a mere 9% of DMN voxels. So this appears to be a major overstatement. For instance, the statement that "these findings would position retinotopy as a unifying framework for brain-wide information processing" is not justified given the presented data.
(2) Given that positive pRF voxels in DMN positively correlate with dATN voxels and negative pRF voxels in DMN negatively correlate with dATN voxels, there is a concern that these results could be contributed to by imprecise brain network parcellations. E.g., could some of the positive pRF voxels in DMN be erroneously assigned to DMN and actually belong to one of the other task-positive networks? There is insufficient validation of network parcellation to put this worry to rest, especially since it depends on ICA, which has a degree of arbitrariness built in.
(3) The claim that retinotopic coding is intrinsic to the DN network is not supported by rigorous analysis and results. The analysis here has many arbitrary factors, including: the threshold of the 99th percentile of resting-state distribution; the designation of DN as "top-down" and dATN as "bottom-up"; the definition of "anti-matched" voxels instead of using randomly selected voxels; and the statistics being paired between matched and anti-matched voxels instead of using comparisons to baseline. Overall, I do not think that the result supports the conclusion that retinotopic coding in DN is intrinsic instead of being bottom-up-driven, given the very high threshold (99%) used and the fact that many other networks could also send bottom-up input to DN. Furthermore, the idea that bottom-up inputs only occur when the dATN (or any other RSN)'s spontaneous BOLD activity is above a certain threshold is a huge and unvalidated assumption.
-
-
-
