Faculty Opinions recommendation of Acoustic factors govern developmental sharpening of spatial tuning in the auditory cortex.

Author(s):  
Dora Angelaki
1986 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Vaadia ◽  
D. A. Benson ◽  
R. D. Hienz ◽  
M. H. Goldstein

The influence of sound localization behavior on unit activity in the frontal cortex of awake rhesus monkeys was examined by comparing responses under three behavioral conditions: auditory localization, during which a response was required to the location of a sound (broad-band noise) source; auditory detect, during which a response was required to indicate the occurrence of the sound regardless of location; visual localization, during which no sounds were presented and a response was required to the location of a visual stimulus; and nonperform, presentation of auditory stimuli as in the first two conditions, but with the animal sitting passively. Extracellular microelectrode recordings were made in the periarcuate region and dorsal and ventral prefrontal areas near the principal sulcus. Four monkeys were used with a total of 498 cells studied. Of the total population, only five cells were found to have characteristics similar to those of auditory units in the primary auditory cortex and the surrounding belt area. More typically, units were found that had strong short-latency responses specific to the auditory and/or visual localization tasks. These units had no or weak responses when the same sound stimuli were presented in the auditory detect task or when a monkey received the sound stimuli in a nonperforming condition. Two regions were identified, one medial and/or posterior to the arcuate sulcus, in Brodmann's area 6; the second included parts of areas 8 and 9 within the genu of the arcuate sulcus. Units from these regions are referred to, respectively, as the postarcuate and the prearcuate populations. Both populations responded predominantly during active localization behavior. Sixty-two percent of the postarcuate population responded during auditory localization, 32% responded during auditory detect, and only 18% responded to acoustic stimuli presented in the nonperforming condition. In the prearcuate population percentages in these three conditions were 35, 25, and 12%, respectively. For visual localization, 54% in the postarcuate population responded, whereas 42% in the prearcuate responded. Spatial tuning of units during auditory localization was similar to that seen in units of the primary auditory cortex, with the greatest percentages of units responding to stimuli contralateral to the recording site. Similar tuning was observed for the visual localization task as well. Similarities in spatial tuning between the auditory and visual localization conditions were examined to assess the "bimodal" nature of the units.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)


2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (9) ◽  
pp. 2140-2151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin D. Yao ◽  
Peter Bremen ◽  
John C. Middlebrooks

The rat is a widely used species for study of the auditory system. Psychophysical results from rats have shown an inability to discriminate sound source locations within a lateral hemifield, despite showing fairly sharp near-midline acuity. We tested the hypothesis that those characteristics of the rat's sound localization psychophysics are evident in the characteristics of spatial sensitivity of its cortical neurons. In addition, we sought quantitative descriptions of in vivo spatial sensitivity of cortical neurons that would support development of an in vitro experimental model to study cortical mechanisms of spatial hearing. We assessed the spatial sensitivity of single- and multiple-neuron responses in the primary auditory cortex (A1) of urethane-anesthetized rats. Free-field noise bursts were varied throughout 360° of azimuth in the horizontal plane at sound levels from 10 to 40 dB above neural thresholds. All neurons encountered in A1 displayed contralateral-hemifield spatial tuning in that they responded strongly to contralateral sound source locations, their responses cut off sharply for locations near the frontal midline, and they showed weak or no responses to ipsilateral sources. Spatial tuning was quite stable across a 30-dB range of sound levels. Consistent with rat psychophysical results, a linear discriminator analysis of spike counts exhibited high spatial acuity for near-midline sounds and poor discrimination for off-midline locations. Hemifield spatial tuning is the most common pattern across all mammals tested previously. The homogeneous population of neurons in rat area A1 will make an excellent system for study of the mechanisms underlying that pattern.


2006 ◽  
Vol 96 (6) ◽  
pp. 3323-3337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy M. Woods ◽  
Steve E. Lopez ◽  
James H. Long ◽  
Joanne E. Rahman ◽  
Gregg H. Recanzone

It has been hypothesized that the primate auditory cortex is composed of at least two processing streams, one of which is believed to selectively process spatial information. To test whether spatial information is differentially encoded in different auditory cortical fields, we recorded the responses of single neurons in the auditory cortex of alert macaque monkeys to broadband noise stimuli presented from 360° in azimuth at four different absolute intensities. Cortical areas tested were core areas A1 and rostral (R), caudal belt fields caudomedial and caudolateral, and more rostral belt fields middle lateral and middle medial (MM). We found that almost all neurons encountered showed some spatial tuning. However, spatial selectivity measures showed that the caudal belt fields had the sharpest spatial tuning, A1 had intermediate spatial tuning, and areas R and MM had the least spatial tuning. Although most neurons showed their best responses to contralateral space, best azimuths were observed across the entire 360° of tested space. We also noted that although the responses of many neurons were significantly influenced by eye position, eye position did not systematically influence any of the spatially dependent responses that we measured. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that caudal auditory cortical fields in the primate process spatial features more accurately than the core and more rostral belt fields.


2012 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. 810-826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Zhou ◽  
Xiaoqin Wang

Sound localization in both humans and monkeys is tolerant to changes in sound levels. The underlying neural mechanism, however, is not well understood. This study reports the level dependence of individual neurons' spatial receptive fields (SRFs) in the primary auditory cortex (A1) and the adjacent caudal field in awake marmoset monkeys. We found that most neurons' excitatory SRF components were spatially confined in response to broadband noise stimuli delivered from the upper frontal sound field. Approximately half the recorded neurons exhibited little change in spatial tuning width over a ∼20-dB change in sound level, whereas the remaining neurons showed either expansion or contraction in their tuning widths. Increased sound levels did not alter the percent distribution of tuning width for neurons collected in either cortical field. The population-averaged responses remained tuned between 30- and 80-dB sound pressure levels for neuronal groups preferring contralateral, midline, and ipsilateral locations. We further investigated the spatial extent and level dependence of the suppressive component of SRFs using a pair of sequentially presented stimuli. Forward suppression was observed when the stimuli were delivered from “far” locations, distant to the excitatory center of an SRF. In contrast to spatially confined excitation, the strength of suppression typically increased with stimulus level at both the excitatory center and far regions of an SRF. These findings indicate that although the spatial tuning of individual neurons varied with stimulus levels, their ensemble responses were level tolerant. Widespread spatial suppression may play an important role in limiting the sizes of SRFs at high sound levels in the auditory cortex.


2003 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 981-988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas D Mrsic-Flogel ◽  
Jan W H Schnupp ◽  
Andrew J King

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (40) ◽  
pp. 8574-8587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiki van der Heijden ◽  
Josef P. Rauschecker ◽  
Elia Formisano ◽  
Giancarlo Valente ◽  
Beatrice de Gelder

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document