4.4 Article

Inhibitory network interactions shape the auditory processing of natural communication signals in the songbird auditory forebrain

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 100, Issue 1, Pages 441-455

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.01239.2007

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. FIC NIH HHS [TW006955, R03 TW006955] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC002853] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [02853, 40900] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The role of GABA in the central processing of complex auditory signals is not fully understood. We have studied the involvement of GABA(A)-mediated inhibition in the processing of birdsong, a learned vocal communication signal requiring intact hearing for its development and maintenance. We focused on caudomedial nidopallium (NCM), an area analogous to parts of the mammalian auditory cortex with selective responses to birdsong. We present evidence that GABA(A)-mediated inhibition plays a pronounced role in NCM's auditory processing of birdsong. Using immunocytochemistry, we show that approximately half of NCM's neurons are GABAergic. Whole cell patch-clamp recordings in a slice preparation demonstrate that, at rest, spontaneously active GABAergic synapses inhibit excitatory inputs onto NCM neurons via GABA(A) receptors. Multi-electrode electrophysiological recordings in awake birds show that local blockade of GABA(A)-mediated inhibition in NCM markedly affects the temporal pattern of song-evoked responses in NCM without modifications in frequency tuning. Surprisingly, this blockade increases the phasic and largely suppresses the tonic response component, reflecting dynamic relationships of inhibitory networks that could include disinhibition. Thus processing of learned natural communication sounds in songbirds, and possibly other vocal learners, may depend on complex interactions of inhibitory networks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available