JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (February 20, 2008). doi:10.1152/jn.01270.2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/6/2809    most recent
01270.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gill, P.
Right arrow Articles by Theunissen, F. E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gill, P.
Right arrow Articles by Theunissen, F. E
Submitted on November 19, 2007
Accepted on February 20, 2008

What's That Sound? Auditory Area CLM Encodes Stimulus Surprise, Not Intensity or Intensity Changes

Patrick Gill1, Sarah M N Woolley2, Thane Fremouw3, and Frederic E Theunissen4*

1 Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States
2 Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
3 Psychology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, United States
4 University of California at Berkeley, United States; Psychology, University of California at Berkeley, United States

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: theunissen{at}berkeley.edu.

High-level sensory neurons encoding natural stimuli are not well described by linear models operating on the time-varying stimulus intensity. Here we show that firing rates of neurons in a secondary sensory forebrain area can be better modelled by linear functions of how surprising the stimulus is. We modelled auditory neurons in the caudal lateral mesopallium (CLM), of adult male zebra finches under urethane anaesthesia with linear filters convolved not with stimulus intensity, but with stimulus surprise. Surprise was quantified as the logarithm of the probability of the stimulus given the local recent stimulus history and expectations based on conspecific song. Using our surprise method, the predictions of neural responses to conspecific song improved by 67% relative to those obtained using stimulus intensity. Similar prediction improvements cannot be replicated by assuming CLM performs derivative detection. The explanatory power of surprise increased from the midbrain through the primary forebrain and to CLM. When the stimulus presented was a random synthetic ripple noise, CLM neurons (but not neurons in lower auditory areas) were best described as if they were expecting conspecific song, finding the inconsistencies between birdsong and noise surprising. In summary, spikes in CLM neurons indicate stimulus surprise more than they indicate stimulus intensity features. The concept of stimulus surprise may be useful for modelling neural responses in other higher order sensory areas whose functions have been poorly understood.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
T. Q. Gentner
Surprising Twist on Auditory Representation. Focus on: "What's That Sound? Auditory Area CLM Encodes Stimulus Surprise, Not Intensity or Intensity Changes"
J Neurophysiol, June 1, 2008; 99(6): 2755 - 2756.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the The American Physiological Society.