scholarly journals Effects of deafness and cochlear implant use on temporal response characteristics in cat primary auditory cortex

2014 ◽  
Vol 315 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
James B. Fallon ◽  
Robert K. Shepherd ◽  
David A.X. Nayagam ◽  
Andrew K. Wise ◽  
Leon F. Heffer ◽  
...  
1998 ◽  
Vol 80 (5) ◽  
pp. 2743-2764 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jos J. Eggermont

Eggermont, Jos J. Representation of spectral and temporal sound features in three cortical fields of the cat. Similarities outweigh differences. J. Neurophysiol. 80: 2743–2764, 1998. This study investigates the degree of similarity of three different auditory cortical areas with respect to the coding of periodic stimuli. Simultaneous single- and multiunit recordings in response to periodic stimuli were made from primary auditory cortex (AI), anterior auditory field (AAF), and secondary auditory cortex (AII) in the cat to addresses the following questions: is there, within each cortical area, a difference in the temporal coding of periodic click trains, amplitude-modulated (AM) noise bursts, and AM tone bursts? Is there a difference in this coding between the three cortical fields? Is the coding based on the temporal modulation transfer function (tMTF) and on the all-order interspike-interval (ISI) histogram the same? Is the perceptual distinction between rhythm and roughness for AM stimuli related to a temporal versus spatial representation of AM frequency in auditory cortex? Are interarea differences in temporal response properties related to differences in frequency tuning? The results showed that: 1) AM stimuli produce much higher best modulation frequencies (BMFs) and limiting rates than periodic click trains. 2) For periodic click trains and AM noise, the BMFs and limiting rates were not significantly different for the three areas. However, for AM tones the BMF and limiting rates were about a factor 2 lower in AAF compared with the other areas. 3) The representation of stimulus periodicity in ISIs resulted in significantly lower mean BMFs and limiting rates compared with those estimated from the tMTFs. The difference was relatively small for periodic click trains but quite large for both AM stimuli, especially in AI and AII. 4) Modulation frequencies <20 Hz were represented in the ISIs, suggesting that rhythm is coded in auditory cortex in temporal fashion. 5) In general only a modest interdependence of spectral- and temporal-response properties in AI and AII was found. The BMFs were correlated positively with characteristic frequency in AAF. The limiting rate was positively correlated with the frequency-tuning curve bandwidth in AI and AII but not in AAF. Only in AAF was a correlation between BMF and minimum latency was found. Thus whereas differences were found in the frequency-tuning curve bandwidth and minimum response latencies among the three areas, the coding of periodic stimuli in these areas was fairly similar with the exception of the very poor representation of AM tones in AII. This suggests a strong parallel processing organization in auditory cortex.


2003 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 2660-2675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer F. Linden ◽  
Robert C. Liu ◽  
Maneesh Sahani ◽  
Christoph E. Schreiner ◽  
Michael M. Merzenich

The mouse is a promising model system for auditory cortex research because of the powerful genetic tools available for manipulating its neural circuitry. Previous studies have identified two tonotopic auditory areas in the mouse—primary auditory cortex (AI) and anterior auditory field (AAF)— but auditory receptive fields in these areas have not yet been described. To establish a foundation for investigating auditory cortical circuitry and plasticity in the mouse, we characterized receptive-field structure in AI and AAF of anesthetized mice using spectrally complex and temporally dynamic stimuli as well as simple tonal stimuli. Spectrotemporal receptive fields (STRFs) were derived from extracellularly recorded responses to complex stimuli, and frequency-intensity tuning curves were constructed from responses to simple tonal stimuli. Both analyses revealed temporal differences between AI and AAF responses: peak latencies and receptive-field durations for STRFs and first-spike latencies for responses to tone bursts were significantly longer in AI than in AAF. Spectral properties of AI and AAF receptive fields were more similar, although STRF bandwidths were slightly broader in AI than in AAF. Finally, in both AI and AAF, a substantial minority of STRFs were spectrotemporally inseparable. The spectrotemporal interaction typically appeared in the form of clearly disjoint excitatory and inhibitory subfields or an obvious spectrotemporal slant in the STRF. These data provide the first detailed description of auditory receptive fields in the mouse and suggest that although neurons in areas AI and AAF share many response characteristics, area AAF may be specialized for faster temporal processing.


2001 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 1220-1234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Didier A. Depireux ◽  
Jonathan Z. Simon ◽  
David J. Klein ◽  
Shihab A. Shamma

To understand the neural representation of broadband, dynamic sounds in primary auditory cortex (AI), we characterize responses using the spectro-temporal response field (STRF). The STRF describes, predicts, and fully characterizes the linear dynamics of neurons in response to sounds with rich spectro-temporal envelopes. It is computed from the responses to elementary “ripples,” a family of sounds with drifting sinusoidal spectral envelopes. The collection of responses to all elementary ripples is the spectro-temporal transfer function. The complex spectro-temporal envelope of any broadband, dynamic sound can expressed as the linear sum of individual ripples. Previous experiments using ripples with downward drifting spectra suggested that the transfer function is separable, i.e., it is reducible into a product of purely temporal and purely spectral functions. Here we measure the responses to upward and downward drifting ripples, assuming reparability within each direction, to determine if the total bidirectional transfer function is fully separable. In general, the combined transfer function for two directions is not symmetric, and hence units in AI are not, in general, fully separable. Consequently, many AI units have complex response properties such as sensitivity to direction of motion, though most inseparable units are not strongly directionally selective. We show that for most neurons, the lack of full separability stems from differences between the upward and downward spectral cross-sections but not from the temporal cross-sections; this places strong constraints on the neural inputs of these AI units.


Epilepsia ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela A. Valentine ◽  
G. Campbell Teskey ◽  
Jos J. Eggermont

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document