Hearing the light: Neural and perceptual encoding of optogenetic stimulation in the central auditory pathway

Scientific Reports

Volumn 5, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Guo, Wei ^a,b   Hight, Ariel E ^a,c   Chen, Jenny X ^a,d   Klapoetke, Nathan C ^e,f   Hancock, Kenneth E ^a,c   Shinn Cunningham, Barbara G ^b,g   Boyden, Edward S ^e,f   Lee, Daniel J ^a,c   Polley, Daniel B ^a,b,c  

^a MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d HMS   (United States)

^e MIT MEDIA LAB   (United States)

^f Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge   (United States)

^g Boston University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHANNELRHODOPSIN 2, MOUSE; RHODOPSIN;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; AUDITORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CBA MOUSE; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; HEARING; METABOLISM; MOUSE; NERVE CELL; OPTOGENETICS; PATCH CLAMP TECHNIQUE; PHYSIOLOGY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ANIMALS; AUDITORY PATHWAYS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; HEARING; MICE; MICE, INBRED CBA; NEURONS; OPTOGENETICS; PATCH-CLAMP TECHNIQUES; RHODOPSIN;

EID: 84930226751     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep10319     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Schmidt, E. M. et al. Feasibility of a visual prosthesis for the blind based on intracortical microstimulation of the visual cortex. Brain 119, 507-522 (1996).
2. Dobelle, W. H. Artificial vision for the blind by connecting a television camera to the visual cortex. ASAIO J. 46, 3-9 (2000).
3. Otto, S. R. et al. Multichannel auditory brainstem implant: update on performance in 61 patients. Journal of Neurosurgery 96, 1063-1071 (2002).
4. Nevison, B. et al. Results from a European Clinical Investigation of the Nucleus® Multichannel Auditory Brainstem Implant, Ear Hear 23, 170 (2002).
5. Otto, S. R. et al. Audiologic Outcomes With the Penetrating Electrode Auditory Brainstem Implant, Otology & Neurotology 29, 1147-1154 (2008).
6. Lim, H. H., Lenarz, M. & Lenarz T., Auditory Midbrain Implant: A Review, TRENDS AMPLIF 13, 149-180 (2009).
7. Colletti, V. & Shannon, R. V. Open Set Speech Perception with Auditory Brainstem Implant? Laryngoscope 115, 1974-1978 (2005).
8. Colletti, V. et al. Outcomes in Nontumor Adults Fitted With the Auditory Brainstem Implant: 10 Years' Experience, Otology & Neurotology 30, 614-618 (2009).
9. Shannon, R. V. Advances in auditory prostheses, Curr. Opin. Neurol. 25, 61-66 (2012).
10. Weiland, J. D. & Humayun, M. S. Retinal prosthesis, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 61, 1412-1424 (2014).
11. Bernstein, J. G. & Boyden, E. S. Optogenetic tools for analyzing the neural circuits of behavior, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15, 592-600 (2011).
12. Fenno, L., Yizhar, O. & Deisseroth, K. The Development and Application of Optogenetics, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 34, 389-412 (2011).
13. Boyden, E. S. et al. Millisecond-timescale, genetically targeted optical control of neural activity, Nature Neuroscience 8, 1263-1268 (2005).
14. Lin, J. Y. et al. Characterization of Engineered Channelrhodopsin Variants with Improved Properties and Kinetics, Biophys. J. 96, 1803-1814 (2009).
15. Joris, P. X., Schreiner, C. E. & Rees, A. Neural processing of amplitude-modulated sounds, Physiological Reviews 84, 541-577 (2004).
16. Golding, N. L. & Oertel, D., Synaptic integration in dendrites: exceptional need for speed, J. Physiol. (Lond.) 590, 5563-5569 (2012).
17. Carr, C. E. Timing is everything: Organization of timing circuits in auditory and electrical sensory systems, J. Comp. Neurol. 472, 131-133 (2004).
18. Chuong, A. S. et al. Independent optical excitation of distinct neural populations, Nature Methods 11, 338-346 (2014).
19. Guo, W. et al. Robustness of cortical topography across fields, laminae, anesthetic states, and neurophysiological signal types, J. Neurosci. 32, 9159-9172 (2012).
20. Shannon, R. V. et al. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues, Science 270, 303-304 (1995).
21. Atiani, S. et al. Emergent selectivity for task-relevant stimuli in higher-order auditory cortex, Neuron 82, 486-499 (2014).
22. Niwa, M. et al. Activity related to perceptual judgment and action in primary auditory cortex, Journal of Neuroscience 32, 3193-3210 (2012).
23. Jaramillo, S. & Zador, A. M. The auditory cortex mediates the perceptual effects of acoustic temporal expectation, Nature Neuroscience 14, 246-251 (2011).
24. Buran, B. N., von Trapp, G. & Sanes, D. H. Behaviorally gated reduction of spontaneous discharge can improve detection thresholds in auditory cortex, Journal of Neuroscience 34, 4076-4081 (2014).
25. Schneider, D. M. & Woolley, S. M. N. Sparse and background-invariant coding of vocalizations in auditory scenes, Neuron 79, 141-152 (2013).
26. Bendor, D. & Wang, X. Differential neural coding of acoustic flutter within primate auditory cortex, Nature Neuroscience 10, 763-771 (2007).
27. Bizley, J. K. et al. Auditory Cortex Represents Both Pitch Judgments and the Corresponding Acoustic Cues, Current Biology 23, 620-625 (2013).
28. Mesgarani, N. & Chang, E. F. Selective cortical representation of attended speaker in multi-talker speech perception, Nature 485, 233-236 (2012).
29. Wilson, B. S. & Dorman, M. F. Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future, Hearing Research 242, 3-21 (2008).
30. Tyler, R. S. Pre-lingually deaf children can perform as well as post-lingually deaf adults using cochlear implants, Cochlear Implants Int. 1, 39-44 (2000).
31. Calixto, R. et al. Coactivation of different neurons within an isofrequency lamina of the inferior colliculus elicits enhanced auditory cortical activation, Journal of Neurophysiology 108, 1199-1210 (2012).
32. Straka, M. M. et al. Effects of location and timing of co-activated neurons in the auditory midbrain on cortical activity: implications for a new central auditory prosthesis, J. Neural Eng. 11, 046021 (2014).
33. Cardin J. A. et al. Driving fast-spiking cells induces gamma rhythm and controls sensory responses, Nature 459, 663-667 (2009).
34. Li, Y.-T. et al. Linear transformation of thalamocortical input by intracortical excitation, Nature Neuroscience 16, 1324-1330 (2013).
35. Li, Y.-T. et al. Differential Receptive Field Properties of Parvalbumin and Somatostatin Inhibitory Neurons in Mouse Auditory Cortex, Cereb Cortex (January 14, 2014). doi: 10.1093/cercor/bht417
36. Moore A. K. & Wehr, M. Parvalbumin-expressing inhibitory interneurons in auditory cortex are well-tuned for frequency, Journal of Neuroscience 33, 13713-13723 (2013).
37. Ulanovsky, N. et al. Multiple time scales of adaptation in auditory cortex neurons, Journal of Neuroscience 24, 10440-10453 (2004).
38. Engineer, C. T. et al. Cortical activity patterns predict speech discrimination ability, Nature Neuroscience 11, 603-608 (2008).
39. David, S. V. et al. Rapid synaptic depression explains nonlinear modulation of spectro-temporal tuning in primary auditory cortex by natural stimuli, Journal of Neuroscience 29, 3374-3386 (2009).
40. Zhou Y. & Wang, X. Cortical processing of dynamic sound envelope transitions, Journal of Neuroscience 30, 16741-16754 (2010).
41. Rabinowitz, N. C. et al. Spectrotemporal contrast kernels for neurons in primary auditory cortex, Journal of Neuroscience 32, 11271-11284 (2012).
42. Malone, B. J. et al. Spectral context affects temporal processing in awake auditory cortex, Journal of Neuroscience 33, 9431-9450 (2013).
43. Rothschild, G., Nelken, I. & Mizrahi, A. Functional organization and population dynamics in the mouse primary auditory cortex, Nature Neuroscience 13, 353-360 (2010).
44. Bandyopadhyay, S., Shamma, S. A. & Kanold, P. O., Dichotomy of functional organization in the mouse auditory cortex, Nature Neuroscience 13, 361-368 (2010).
45. Bathellier, B., Ushakova, L. & Rumpel S., Discrete neocortical dynamics predict behavioral categorization of sounds, Neuron 76, 435-449 (2012).
46. Issa, J. B. et al. Multiscale Optical Ca2+ Imaging of Tonal Organization in Mouse Auditory Cortex, Neuron 83, 944-959 (2014).
47. Luczak, A., Bartho, P. & Harris K. D. Spontaneous events outline the realm of possible sensory responses in neocortical populations, Neuron 62, 413-425 (2009).
48. Jeanne, J. M., Sharpee, T. O. & Gentner, T. Q. Associative learning enhances population coding by inverting interneuronal correlation patterns, Neuron 78, 352-363 (2013).
49. Rothschild, G. et al. Elevated correlations in neuronal ensembles of mouse auditory cortex following parturition, Journal of Neuroscience 33, 12851-12861 (2013).
50. Adams, J. C. Ascending projections to the inferior colliculus, J. Comp. Neurol. 183, 519-538 (1979).
51. Brunso-Bechtold, J. K., Thompson, G. C. & Masterton, R. B. HRP study of the organization of auditory afferents ascending to central nucleus of inferior colliculus in cat, J. Comp. Neurol. 197, 705-722 (1981).
52. Madisen, L. et al. A toolbox of Cre-dependent optogenetic transgenic mice for light-induced activation and silencing, Nature Neuroscience 15, 793-802 (2012).
53. Dittgen, T. et al. Lentivirus-based genetic manipulations of cortical neurons and their optical and electrophysiological monitoring in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 18206-18211 (2004).
54. Bilak, M. M., Bilak, S. R. & Morest, D. K. Differential expression of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor in the cochlear nucleus of the mouse, Neuroscience 75, 1075-1097 (1996).
55. Hackett, T. A., Takahata, T. & Balaram, P. VGLUT1 and VGLUT2 mRNA expression in the primate auditory pathway, Hearing Research 274, 129-141 (2011).
56. Cai, D. et al. Improved tools for the Brainbow toolbox, Nature Methods 10, 540-547 (2013).
57. Harris, C. S. Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision, Psychol Rev 72, 419-444 (1965).
58. Hofman, P. M., Van Riswick, J. G. & Van Opstal A. J. Relearning sound localization with new ears, Nature Neuroscience 1, 417-421 (1998).
59. Wilson, B. S. et al. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants, Nature 352, 236-238 (1991).
60. Reiss, L. A. J. et al. Effects of extreme tonotopic mismatches between bilateral cochlear implants on electric pitch perception: A case study, Ear Hear 32, 536-540 (2011).