The circuit architecture of cortical multisensory processing: Distinct functions jointly operating within a common anatomical network

Meijer, Mertens, Pennartz, Olcese, Lansink · Progress in Neurobiology · 2019 · neuroscience · 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2019.01.004 · record meijer2019-the-circuit-architecture-of-cortic
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. This is a review article, so its central claim is a synthesis rather than a testable result; replication status is 'untested'. The van Atteveld relation is recorded as 'contradicts' because the authors explicitly reject that review's two-mechanism sufficiency claim while accepting the mechanisms themselves - the enum has no 'qualifies' value. The paper's scope restriction to rodent work ('We focus on rodent models as a powerful instrument to study the circuit-level bases of multisensory processes, because they enable combining cell-type-specific recording and interventional techniques with complex behavioral paradigms.') is framed as a strength, not a limit, so it was not entered as a limitation. The extracted text is clean apart from PDF artefacts such as 'in depth' for 'in-depth', which are reproduced verbatim in the quotes. 2026-08-14 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

1 quote on this page breaks a word across a line. The PDF this text was extracted from hyphenated a word at the end of a printed line — adversar- ial, repre- sentations — and the extractor kept the hyphen and the space. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing: the break is the typesetter’s, not the author’s. A search of this page will not find the affected words.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. 1 tag on this page names the author the result belongs to. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
integration 3 fields · segregation 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 5 concept tags on this paper, all 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

multisensory processing segregation integration cue integration MLE rule sensory noise is independent across sense organs but shared within one modality, so pooling across modalities cancels more noise and yields a bigger behavioral gain than pooling within a modality sound enhances vision by disinhibition: A1 layer-5 axons drive layer-1 interneurons in V1, which inhibit the layer 2-3 interneurons that normally suppress pyramidal cells a cross-modal stimulus resets ongoing oscillations, imposing a cycle of high and low excitability so that later same-modality inputs are amplified or depressed according to oscillation phase prefrontal input to the thalamic reticular formation sets thalamic sensory gain, gating how much of each modality reaches primary cortex and thereby implementing sensory selection selecting neurons at the low tail of a normal response distribution guarantees they drift upward on remeasurement, manufacturing an apparent inverse-effectiveness effect out of nothing a loud auditory distractor overshadows a concurrent visual cue, capturing processing resources and cutting the behavioral response to the visual stimulus multisensory cue integration sensory selection multisensory principle of inverse effectiveness temporal principle of multisensory integration unisensory integration Maximum-Likelihood Estimate divisive normalization association cortices stimulus intensity Correct responses model fitting / model comparison assessing how well models of cue-combination based on signal detection theory fitted to our behavioral data p-value review

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2019.01.004. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 2 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 2 · concepts 5 · content_tags 30 · controls 2 · limitations 6 · mechanisms 6 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 3

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	cortical multisensory processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sensory noise is independent across sense organs but shared within one modality, so pooling across modalities cancels more noise and yields a bigger behavioral gain than pooling within a modality	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sound enhances vision by disinhibition: A1 layer-5 axons drive layer-1 interneurons in V1, which inhibit the layer 2-3 interneurons that normally suppress pyramidal cells	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a cross-modal stimulus resets ongoing oscillations, imposing a cycle of high and low excitability so that later same-modality inputs are amplified or depressed according to oscillation phase	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prefrontal input to the thalamic reticular formation sets thalamic sensory gain, gating how much of each modality reaches primary cortex and thereby implementing sensory selection	`mechanisms[3]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: selecting neurons at the low tail of a normal response distribution guarantees they drift upward on remeasurement, manufacturing an apparent inverse-effectiveness effect out of nothing	`mechanisms[4]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a loud auditory distractor overshadows a concurrent visual cue, capturing processing resources and cutting the behavioral response to the visual stimulus	`mechanisms[5]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The inventory of micro-circuits supporting multisensory processing is still incomplete and ambiguous. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the circuit inventory the review assembles: THE PICTURE OF AVAILABLE MICRO-CIRCUITRIES STARTS EMERGING FROM RECENT RESEARCH BUT IS FAR FROM BEING UNAMBIGUOUS AND COMPLETE	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	It is not yet known whether the mechanisms reviewed are specific to association or sensory cortex or are general coding schemes. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the level of generality of every mechanism reviewed: WHETHER SPECIFIC MECHANISMS PERTAIN TO ASSOCIATION CORTEX, SENSORY CORTEX, OR REPRESENT MORE GENERAL CODING SCHEMES AWAITS FURTHER INVESTIGATION	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Whether the specific A1-V1 circuit implementations fit a general mechanism or a hierarchical Bayesian model is unresolved. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the hierarchical-Bayesian framing: WHETHER SUCH SPECIFIC CIRCUIT IMPLEMENTATIONS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH A GENERAL MECHANISM FOR MP, AND CAN BE MODELED IN A HIERARCHICAL BAYESIAN FASHION ... REMAINS TO BE ADDRESSED	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The model's reliability prediction is stated by the authors to hold by definition. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim that MLE integration was confirmed to improve reliability: under the MLE rule the combined estimate's reliability is the sum of the unisensory reliabilities and is therefore by definition more reliable	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The review adopts a deliberately broad definition and names what it thereby encompasses. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any count or comparison of multisensory findings under this review: the definition used is any process in which information across sensory modalities is combined to make a perceptual inference, which encompasses functions that both precede and incorporate cue integration	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The species scope has an escape clause based on a judgement of standing. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the evidence base of this review: studies in cats and non-human primates are included if no rodent data are available or if the results have been seminal to the field	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	the observed correlation was tested against a NULL DISTRIBUTION built for the purpose Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: REGRESSION TO THE MEAN - that a correlation between unisensory responsiveness and multisensory modulation appears simply because extreme values move toward the mean · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	neurons with the lowest and highest responses were removed and inverse effectiveness re-checked on what remained Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that inverse effectiveness is a CEILING AND FLOOR artefact - neurons operating at the limits of their dynamic range cannot show further modulation · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	multisensory processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multisensory processing	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	segregation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: segregation	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	integration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: integration	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	cue integration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cue integration	`concepts[3]`		the paper's words
concepts	MLE rule Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MLE rule	`concepts[4]`		the paper's words
senses	multisensory processing - A FAMILY OF FUNCTIONS, NOT ONE OPERATION: the review's central move is to say the term covers not only integration but also SEGREGATION of modalities, so a word the field uses for combining also names the deciding-not-to-combine, and the two have opposite outcomes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the MLE reliability claim - TRUE BY CONSTRUCTION, AND LABELLED SO: the combined estimate's reliability is the sum of the unisensory reliabilities and is therefore by definition more reliable; the empirical claim that the framework applies is separate, and only the second can fail Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the definition in use - CHOSEN FOR ITS BREADTH: any process in which information across sensory modalities is combined to make a perceptual inference, attributed to Bizley et al., and stated to encompass functions that both precede and incorporate cue integration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Bizley et al. (2016) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → van Atteveld et al. (2014) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	integration —part-of→ multisensory processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: integration · multisensory processing	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	segregation —part-of→ multisensory processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: segregation · multisensory processing	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	model fitting / model comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: model fitting / model comparison	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The review concludes that different multisensory processes reuse the same overlapping anatomical network but are carried out by several distinct micro-circuits running in parallel, each recruited according to stimulus features and behavioral constraints. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Multisensory processing is not one operation but a family of functions that includes segregating modalities as well as integrating them. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The outcome of multisensory processing is set jointly by physical stimulus properties (bottom-up) and by cognitive resources and situational demands (top-down). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The same anatomical circuit, such as direct V1-A1 connections, can exert different effects depending on the type of stimulus, implementing distinct cross-modal behaviours. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The two population-level mechanisms previously proposed (divisive normalization and phase resetting) cannot account for the whole of multisensory processing; a larger set of computational rules is needed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The authors argue that different circuits evolved for multi- and unisensory processing, and multisensory integration is not simply extra converging input. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Correlating unisensory responsiveness with multisensory modulation can produce a spurious inverse-effectiveness result because the two variables are not independent and are subject to regression to the mean. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The authors prescribe that any observed inverse-effectiveness correlation be tested against a null distribution built by shuffling before it is claimed as real. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Using only simple cross-modal cues biases the field toward primary sensory cortices and hides the contribution of association cortices. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Experience may switch cross-modal object recognition from a feedforward route (PPC to perirhinal cortex) to a feedback route in which perirhinal multisensory representations affect earlier sensory cortices. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Conscious experience is proposed to be a higher-order form of multisensory integration that sits above cue integration, object recognition and sensory selection, none of which alone suffices for consciousness. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[10]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Cue-integration models fit the mice's detection behaviour significantly better than a model of independent processing. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[11]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Rodents can integrate stimuli supra-linearly, better than Bayes-optimal. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: recent studies showed - THE SUBJECT OF THIS RESULT IS AN INDEFINITE STUDY, NOT THIS PAPER. 'Previous studies reported', 'studies in guinea pig showed', 'recent studies have reported' - somebody else's work under a common noun rather than a name, with a citation in the sentence and no first-person marker. The quote is verbatim and the claim is true; only the attribution is wrong. FOUND BY MEASURING MY OWN CUE'S RECALL: the first sweep required a NAMED author as the subject ('Sperling (1960) demonstrated') and found 17. Reading eleven citation-bearing findings on 'Plakke2016' by hand showed four the cue could not see - 'A study examining recognition found', 'studies of typical human subjects have demonstrated', 'A follow up study found' - so the named cue's 17 was a floor and not a count. A CUE'S FALSE POSITIVES TELL YOU NOTHING ABOUT ITS FALSE NEGATIVES, and the only way to find these was to read a record's whole layer.	`content_tags.findings[12]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	multisensory cue integration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multisensory cue integration	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	sensory selection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sensory selection	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	multisensory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multisensory	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	principle of inverse effectiveness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: principle of inverse effectiveness	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	temporal principle of multisensory integration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal principle of multisensory integration	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	unisensory integration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: unisensory integration	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Maximum-Likelihood Estimate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Maximum-Likelihood Estimate	`content_tags.definitions[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	divisive normalization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: divisive normalization	`content_tags.definitions[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	association cortices Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: association cortices	`content_tags.definitions[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	stimulus intensity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus intensity	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Correct responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Correct responses	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	80 ms — temporal separation beyond which two cross-modal signals are likely to be treated as coming from different sources and segregated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	0–100 ms — the lead time by which a somatosensory stimulus must precede a visual one for layer-4 responses in rat parietal cortex to be enhanced rather than suppressed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	100% — the misleadingly large percentage increase produced by one extra spike when the baseline response is a single spike, used to argue against percentage metrics of multisensory modulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	p < 0.01 — significance of the drop in novel-object exploration ratio after perirhinal-parietal disconnection lesions in cross-modal object recognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.