Contrast tuning in auditory cortex

Science

Volumn 299, Issue 5609, 2003, Pages 1073-1075

  Barbour, Dennis L ^a   Wang, Xiaoqin ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDITION; NEUROLOGY; SPECTRUM ANALYSIS;

AUDITORY CORTEX NEURONS;

ACOUSTICS;

ACOUSTICS; AUDITORY CUE;

ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; AUDITORY CORTEX; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BRAIN NERVE CELL; CONTROLLED STUDY; MONKEY; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOUND;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACTION POTENTIALS; ANIMALS; AUDITORY CORTEX; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; CALLITHRIX; NEURONS;

ANIMALIA; MARMOSETS;

EID: 0037436106     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1080425     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Y. Dan, J. J. Atick, R. C. Reid, J. Neurosci. 16, 3351 (1996).
2. B. A. Olshausen, D. J. Field, Nature 381, 607 (1996).
3. O. Schwartz, E. P. Simoncelli, Nature Neurosci. 4, 819 (2001).
4. M. S. Lewicki, Nature Neurosci. 5, 356 (2002).
5. E. D. Young, in The Synaptic Organization of the Brain, G. M. Shepherd, Ed. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1998), pp. 121-157.
6. _, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 933 (1997).
7. N. Suga, in Auditory Function: Neurobiological Bases of Hearing, G. M. Edelman, W. E. Gall, W. M. Cowan, Eds. (Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988), pp. 679-720.
8. _, in The Cognitive Neurosciences, M. S. Gazzaniga, Ed. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994), pp. 295-313.
9. J. P. Rauschecker, B. Tian, M. Hauser, Science 268, 111 (1995).
10. C. E. Schreiner, J. R. Mendelson, J. Neurophysiol. 64, 1442 (1990).
11. _, M. L. Sutter, J. Neurophysiol. 68, 1487 (1992).
12. G. E. Peterson, H. L. Barney, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 24, 175 (1952).
13. X. Wang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 11843 (2003).
14. RSS were similar to stimuli originally developed by E. D. Young for studying subcortical auditory neurons. Stimuli consisted of logarithmically spaced tones with amplitudes randomly distributed around a mean value. The tones were grouped into frequency bins such that all tones within a bin shared the same amplitude.
15. Tr, where α represents the single unique eigenvalue of the frequency autocorrelation matrix of Λ. This estimate represents a rate-weighted average wideband stimulus (the optimal linear stimulus) scaled by overall rate.
16. G. Ehret, M. M. Merzenich, Science 227, 1245 (1985).
17. _, Brain Res. 472, 139 (1988).
18. B. M. Calhoun, R. L. Miller, J. C. Wong, E. D. Young, in Psychophysical and Physiological Advances in Hearing, A. R. Palmer, A. Rees, A. Q. Summerfield, R. Meddis, Eds. (Whurr Publishers, London, 1998), pp. 170-177.
19. J. J. Yu, E. D. Young, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 11780 (2000).
20. Extracellular recording methods have been described previously (29). Neurons were isolated from all cortical layers and were sampled on the superior temporal gyrus from the lateral sulcus medially to nonauditory areas laterally. This region comprises A1 and the lateral belt. OLS have spectral profiles matching a neuron's WF.
21. WF similarity curves compared WFs computed from spikes in each 20-ms interval of stimulus duration with a WF computed from spikes throughout the stimulus interval. Similarity measures between each pair of WF vectors were normalized inner products, which could take on values in the range [-1, 1] (perfect match was 1, chance value was 0). All 90 neurons were studied with stimuli at least 100 ms in duration; 22 neurons were studied with longer stimuli.
22. Rate-level curves were constructed by varying the mean level of the OLS at a fixed contrast and measuring the corresponding rate. Rate-contrast curves were constructed by taking the peak of the rate-level curve at each contrast value.
23. L. M. Aitkin, M. M. Merzenich, D. R. Irvine, J. C. Clarey, J. E. Nelson, J. Comp. Neurol. 252, 175 (1986).
24. H. R. Seiden, thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (1957).
25. C. E. Schreiner, B. M. Calhoun, Aud. Neurosci. 1, 39 (1994).
26. N. Kowalski, D. A. Depireux, S. A. Shamma, J. Neurophysiol. 76, 3524 (1996).
27. R. C. deCharms, D. T. Blake, M. M. Merzenich, Science 280, 1439 (1998).
28. J. W. Schnupp, T. D. Mrsic-Flogel, A. J. King, Nature 414, 200 (2001).
29. D. L. Barbour, X. Wang, J. Neurophysiol. 88, 2684 (2002).
30. We thank E. D. Young for generously sharing the theory behind RSS, E. Bartlett for comments on a previous version of this manuscript, and A. Pistorio for assistance in animal training and graphic design. Supported by NIH grant DC-03180 and a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (X.W.).