| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
uta1,2
ák1
í Popelá11 Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 142 20 Prague 2 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University, 100 00 Prague, Czech Republic
Submitted 30 December 2002; accepted in final form 21 August 2003
The responses of individual neurons to 4 typical guinea pig vocalization calls (purr, chutter, chirp, and whistle) were recorded in the inferior colliculus (IC) of anesthetized guinea pigs. All calls elicited a response in about 80% of units. Unit selectivity for individual calls was low, given that a majority of neurons (55% of 124 units) responded to all vocalizations and only a small portion of neurons (3%) responded to only one call or did not respond to any of the calls (3%). In 15% of units, the response to one call was 
25% stronger than the response to any other sound (tone, noise, and other calls); these neurons were selective for chirp or whistle, and no unit preferred chutter or purr. Neuronal activity provided information about the spectrotemporal patterns of the calls. Peristimulus time histograms (PSTHs) reflected the energy of the near-characteristic frequency band, and the population PSTH reliably matched the sound envelope for calls characterized by one or more short impulses (chirp, purr, and chutter) but did not exactly fit the envelope for whistle—a slow-modulated and relatively long call. Calculations based on firing rates indicated the approximate positions of the main spectral peaks but did not always reflect their relative magnitude. The time-reversed version of whistle elicited on average a weaker response than did the natural whistle (by 24%), but there were neurons with a significantly stronger response to the natural ("forward-selective," 30%) as well as to the time-reversed whistle ("reverse-selective," 15%). This study does not prove the existence of units selectively responding to animal calls, but it provides evidence for the encoding of the spectrotemporal acoustic patterns of vocalizations by IC units.
ská 1083, 142 20 Prague, Czech Republic (E-mail: syka{at}biomed.cas.cz). This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. H. Lim, M. Lenarz, and T. Lenarz Auditory Midbrain Implant: A Review Trends in Amplification, September 1, 2009; 13(3): 149 - 180. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. A. Razak, M. D. Richardson, and Z. M. Fuzessery Experience is required for the maintenance and refinement of FM sweep selectivity in the developing auditory cortex PNAS, March 18, 2008; 105(11): 4465 - 4470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. A. Razak and Z. M. Fuzessery Development of Inhibitory Mechanisms Underlying Selectivity for the Rate and Direction of Frequency-Modulated Sweeps in the Auditory Cortex J. Neurosci., February 14, 2007; 27(7): 1769 - 1781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Gourevitch and J. J. Eggermont Spatial Representation of Neural Responses to Natural and Altered Conspecific Vocalizations in Cat Auditory Cortex J Neurophysiol, January 1, 2007; 97(1): 144 - 158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. DiMattina and X. Wang Virtual Vocalization Stimuli for Investigating Neural Representations of Species-Specific Vocalizations J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2006; 95(2): 1244 - 1262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Xie, J. Meitzen, and G. D. Pollak Differing Roles of Inhibition in Hierarchical Processing of Species-Specific Calls in Auditory Brainstem Nuclei J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2005; 94(6): 4019 - 4037. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Cedolin and B. Delgutte Pitch of Complex Tones: Rate-Place and Interspike Interval Representations in the Auditory Nerve J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2005; 94(1): 347 - 362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
