HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 100/2/888    most recent 00884.2007v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bendor, D. Articles by Wang, X. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bendor, D. Articles by Wang, X.

Neural Response Properties of Primary, Rostral, and Rostrotemporal Core Fields in the Auditory Cortex of Marmoset Monkeys

Laboratory of Auditory Neurophysiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Submitted 8 August 2007; accepted in final form 29 May 2008

The core region of primate auditory cortex contains a primary and two primary-like fields (AI, primary auditory cortex; R, rostral field; RT, rostrotemporal field). Although it is reasonable to assume that multiple core fields provide an advantage for auditory processing over a single primary field, the differential roles these fields play and whether they form a functional pathway collectively such as for the processing of spectral or temporal information are unknown. In this report we compare the response properties of neurons in the three core fields to pure tones and sinusoidally amplitude modulated tones in awake marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus). The main observations are as follows. (1) All three fields are responsive to spectrally narrowband sounds and are tonotopically organized. (2) Field AI responds more strongly to pure tones than fields R and RT. (3) Field RT neurons have lower best sound levels than those of neurons in fields AI and R. In addition, rate-level functions in field RT are more commonly nonmonotonic than in fields AI and R. (4) Neurons in fields RT and R have longer minimum latencies than those of field AI neurons. (5) Fields RT and R have poorer stimulus synchronization than that of field AI to amplitude-modulated tones. (6) Between the three core fields the more rostral regions (R and RT) have narrower firing-rate–based modulation transfer functions than that of AI. This effect was seen only for the nonsynchronized neurons. Synchronized neurons showed no such trend.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Kusmierek and J. P. Rauschecker Functional Specialization of Medial Auditory Belt Cortex in the Alert Rhesus Monkey J Neurophysiol, September 1, 2009; 102(3): 1606 - 1622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. K. Bizley and K. M. M. Walker Distributed Sensitivity to Conspecific Vocalizations and Implications for the Auditory Dual Stream Hypothesis J. Neurosci., March 11, 2009; 29(10): 3011 - 3013. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H. Recanzone Representation of Con-Specific Vocalizations in the Core and Belt Areas of the Auditory Cortex in the Alert Macaque Monkey J. Neurosci., December 3, 2008; 28(49): 13184 - 13193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Yin, M. Mishkin, M. Sutter, and J. B. Fritz Early Stages of Melody Processing: Stimulus-Sequence and Task-Dependent Neuronal Activity in Monkey Auditory Cortical Fields A1 and R J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2008; 100(6): 3009 - 3029. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]