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: 93/1/22    most recent 00248.2004v1 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 ISI 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 ISI Web of Science (13) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kajikawa, Y. Articles by Hackett, T. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kajikawa, Y. Articles by Hackett, T. A.

TRANSLATIONAL PHYSIOLOGY

A Comparison of Neuron Response Properties in Areas A1 and CM of the Marmoset Monkey Auditory Cortex: Tones and Broadband Noise

¹Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville; and ²Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee

Submitted 11 March 2004; accepted in final form 31 August 2004

The purpose of this study was to compare response properties of two adjacent areas of the marmoset monkey auditory cortex. Multiunit responses to 50 ms tones and broadband noise bursts (BBN) were recorded in the core area, A1, and the caudomedial belt area, CM, of ketamine-anesthetized animals. Neurons in A1 and CM exhibited robust low-threshold short-latency responses to BBN and tones, whereas neurons in adjoining lateral belt areas were poorly responsive or unresponsive to tones and noise. Except for a population of broadly tuned units in CM, the characteristic frequency (CF) could be determined for all recording sites in A1 and CM. Both areas were tonotopically organized and shared a high CF border. Whereas the tonotopic gradient in A1 was smooth and continuous across the field, the gradient in CM was discontinuous, and the intermediate CF range was underrepresented. For BBN stimuli, rate level functions were largely monotonic in A1 and CM. Response profiles were also similar in both areas. As a population, neurons in CM were distinguished from A1 by significantly shorter response latencies, lower thresholds, and broader tuning bandwidth at higher intensities. The results indicated that, while A1 and CM represent anatomically and physiologically distinct areas, their response profiles under anesthesia overlapped considerably compared with the lateral belt areas. Therefore refinements of current models of the primate auditory cortex may be needed to account for differences in organization among the auditory belt areas.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				U. Werner-Reiss and J. M. Groh A Rate Code for Sound Azimuth in Monkey Auditory Cortex: Implications for Human Neuroimaging Studies J. Neurosci., April 2, 2008; 28(14): 3747 - 3758. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Bourne and M. G.P. Rosa Hierarchical Development of the Primate Visual Cortex, as Revealed by Neurofilament Immunoreactivity: Early Maturation of the Middle Temporal Area (MT) Cereb Cortex, March 1, 2006; 16(3): 405 - 414. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Inui, H. Okamoto, K. Miki, A. Gunji, and R. Kakigi Serial and Parallel Processing in the Human Auditory Cortex: A Magnetoencephalographic Study Cereb Cortex, January 1, 2006; 16(1): 18 - 30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]