| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic; 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
2 Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: syka{at}biomed.cas.cz.
The responses of individual neurons to four 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 approximately 80% of units. Unit selectivity for individual calls was low, as 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 at least 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-CF 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.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. Hoshino Spatiotemporal conversion of auditory information for cochleotopic mapping. Neural Comput., February 1, 2007; 19(2): 351 - 370. [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 |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
