Migraine Increases Centre-Surround Suppression for Drifting Visual Stimuli

Background The pathophysiology of migraine is incompletely understood, but evidence points to hyper-responsivity of cortical neurons being a key feature. The basis of hyper-responsiveness is not clear, with an excitability imbalance potentially arising from either reduced inhibition or increased excitation. In this study, we measure centre-surround contrast suppression in people with migraine as a perceptual analogue of the interplay between inhibition and excitation in cortical areas responsible for vision. We predicted that reduced inhibitory function in migraine would reduce perceptual surround suppression. Recent models of neuronal surround suppression incorporate excitatory feedback that drives surround inhibition. Consequently, an increase in excitation predicts an increase in perceptual surround suppression. Methods and Findings Twenty-six people with migraine and twenty approximately age- and gender-matched non-headache controls participated. The perceived contrast of a central sinusoidal grating patch (4 c/deg stationary grating, or 2 c/deg drifting at 2 deg/sec, 40% contrast) was measured in the presence and absence of a 95% contrast annular grating (same orientation, spatial frequency, and drift rate). For the static grating, similar surround suppression strength was present in control and migraine groups with the presence of the surround resulting in the central patch appearing to be 72% and 65% of its true contrast for control and migraine groups respectively (t(44) = 0.81, p = 0.42). For the drifting stimulus, the migraine group showed significantly increased surround suppression (t(44) = 2.86, p<0.01), with perceived contrast being on average 53% of actual contrast for the migraine group and 68% for non-headache controls. Conclusions In between migraines, when asymptomatic, visual surround suppression for drifting stimuli is greater in individuals with migraine than in controls. The data provides evidence for a behaviourally measurable imbalance in inhibitory and excitatory visual processes in migraine and is incompatible with a simple model of reduced cortical inhibitory function within the visual system.

[1]  Mark W. Cannon,et al.  Spatial interactions in apparent contrast: Inhibitory effects among grating patterns of different spatial frequencies, spatial positions and orientations , 1991, Vision Research.

[2]  G. Coppola,et al.  Is The Cerebral Cortex Hyperexcitable or Hyperresponsive in Migraine? , 2007, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[3]  S. Dakin,et al.  Weak suppression of visual context in chronic schizophrenia , 2005, Current Biology.

[4]  R. Lipton,et al.  Migraine in the United States: Epidemiology and patterns of health care use , 2002, Neurology.

[5]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Perceptual consequences of centre–surround antagonism in visual motion processing , 2003, Nature.

[6]  E. Chronicle,et al.  Suppression of perception in migraine: Evidence for reduced inhibition in the visual cortex , 2001 .

[7]  A. Shepherd Visual Contrast Processing in Migraine , 2000, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[8]  Alessandra Angelucci,et al.  Contrast-dependence of surround suppression in Macaque V1: Experimental testing of a recurrent network model , 2010, NeuroImage.

[9]  Tatsuto Takeuchi,et al.  Modulation of perceived contrast by a moving surround , 2000, Vision Research.

[10]  E. Chronicle,et al.  Cortical Inhibition Is Reduced in Chronic and Episodic Migraine and Demonstrates a Spectrum of Illness , 2005, Headache.

[11]  Christopher Patrick Taylor,et al.  Aging Reduces Center-Surround Antagonism in Visual Motion Processing , 2005, Neuron.

[12]  Allison M. McKendrick,et al.  Aging alters surround modulation of perceived contrast. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[13]  A J Shepherd,et al.  Increased visual after-effects following pattern adaptation in migraine: a lack of intracortical excitation? , 2001, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[14]  A. Shepherd Local and global motion after-effects are both enhanced in migraine, and the underlying mechanisms differ across cortical areas. , 2006, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[15]  B. Efron,et al.  A Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the Jackknife, and , 1983 .

[16]  D. Badcock,et al.  Visual dysfunction between migraine events. , 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  D. Badcock,et al.  Psychophysical measurement of neural adaptation abnormalities in magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in glaucoma. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[18]  D. Badcock,et al.  Motion Processing Deficits in Migraine , 2004, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[19]  G. Benedek,et al.  Spatial Contrast Sensitivity of Migraine Patients Without Aura , 2002, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[20]  J. Schoenen,et al.  Evoked potentials and transcranial magnetic stimulation in migraine: published data and viewpoint on their pathophysiologic significance , 2003, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[21]  M. Moskowitz,et al.  New insights into migraine pathophysiology , 2006, Current opinion in neurology.

[22]  C. Granziera,et al.  Anatomical Alterations of the Visual Motion Processing Network in Migraine with and without Aura , 2006, PLoS medicine.

[23]  P. Drummond,et al.  Migraine and motion sickness: What is the link? , 2010, Progress in Neurobiology.

[24]  J. Movshon,et al.  Nature and interaction of signals from the receptive field center and surround in macaque V1 neurons. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  R. Lipton,et al.  The Global Burden of Headache: A Documentation of Headache Prevalence and Disability Worldwide , 2007, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[26]  D. Badcock,et al.  Decreased visual field sensitivity measured 1 day, then 1 week, after migraine. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[27]  D. Heeger,et al.  Measurement and modeling of center-surround suppression and enhancement , 2001, Vision Research.

[28]  J A Solomon,et al.  Texture interactions determine perceived contrast , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  R. Wurtz,et al.  Functional Identification of a Pulvinar Path from Superior Colliculus to Cortical Area MT , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[30]  D. Badcock,et al.  Contrast-processing dysfunction in both magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in migraineurs with or without aura. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[31]  W. Stewart,et al.  Clinical Utility of an Instrument Assessing Migraine Disability: The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire , 2001, Headache.

[32]  R Shapley,et al.  Visual sensitivity and parallel retinocortical channels. , 1990, Annual review of psychology.

[33]  F. Wilkinson,et al.  Binocular Rivalry in Migraine , 2008, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[34]  M. Anderson,et al.  Visual Field Loss After Attacks of Migraine With Aura , 1992, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[35]  M. Gazzaniga,et al.  The new cognitive neurosciences , 2000 .

[36]  J. Olesen The International Classification of Headache Disorders , 2008, Headache.

[37]  J. Masdeu,et al.  Human Cerebral Activation during Steady-State Visual-Evoked Responses , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[38]  C. Kennard,et al.  Responses to Temporal Visual Stimuli in Migraine: The Critical Flicker Fusion Test , 1995, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[39]  L. Battelli,et al.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation of visual area V5 in migraine , 2002, Neurology.

[40]  Timothy De Ver Dye,et al.  Migraine and the Environment , 2009, Headache.

[41]  P. Koehler,et al.  Suppression of perception in migraine , 2001, Neurology.

[42]  S. Aurora,et al.  The Brain is Hyperexcitable in Migraine , 2007, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[43]  E. Piovesan,et al.  Critical Flicker Frequency in Migraine. A Controlled Study in Patients without Prophylactic Therapy , 2005, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[44]  D M Levi,et al.  Surround modulation of perceived contrast and the role of brightness induction. , 2001, Journal of vision.

[45]  Allison M McKendrick,et al.  Center-surround visual motion processing in migraine. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[46]  G. A. Lambert,et al.  The Mode of Action of Migraine Triggers: A Hypothesis , 2009, Headache.

[47]  Barry B. Lee,et al.  Chapter 7 New views of primate retinal function , 1990 .

[48]  C. Johnson,et al.  Visual field loss in migraine. , 1989, Ophthalmology.

[49]  B. Fierro,et al.  Cortical Hypoactivity or Reduced Efficiency of Cortical Inhibition in Migraine? , 2007, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[50]  A. Yarangümeli,et al.  Glaucomatous visual field defects in patients with migraine , 2003, Journal of Neurology.

[51]  M. Soso,et al.  Migraine and stripe-induced visual discomfort. , 1989, Archives of neurology.

[52]  A. Antal,et al.  Altered Motion Perception in Migraineurs: Evidence for Interictal Cortical Hyperexcitability , 2005, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[53]  A. McKendrick,et al.  Low Spatial Frequency Contrast Sensitivity Deficits in Migraine are not Visual Pathway Selective , 2009, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[54]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Weakened Center-Surround Interactions in Visual Motion Processing in Schizophrenia , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[55]  F. Wilkinson,et al.  Visual Contrast Gain Control in Migraine: Measures of Visual Cortical Excitability and Inhibition , 2000, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[56]  H. Spekreijse,et al.  Contextual modulation in primary visual cortex and scene perception , 2000 .

[57]  A. Angelucci,et al.  Contribution of feedforward, lateral and feedback connections to the classical receptive field center and extra-classical receptive field surround of primate V1 neurons. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[58]  D. Badcock,et al.  Processing of global form and motion in migraineurs , 2006, Vision Research.

[59]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[60]  W. Newsome,et al.  A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT) , 1988, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[61]  G. Dutton,et al.  Visual noise selectively degrades vision in migraine. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[62]  D. Pietrobon Insights into migraine mechanisms and CaV2.1 calcium channel function from mouse models of familial hemiplegic migraine , 2010, The Journal of physiology.

[63]  Charles E. Riva,et al.  Visually evoked hemodynamical response and assessment of neurovascular coupling in the optic nerve and retina , 2005, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[64]  A. McKendrick,et al.  An Analysis of the Factors Associated with Visual Field Deficits Measured with Flickering Stimuli in-between Migraine , 2004, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.