4.5 Article

Interfield differences in intensity and frequency representation of evoked potentials in rat auditory cortex

Journal

HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 210, Issue 1-2, Pages 9-23

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2005.05.014

Keywords

auditory cortex; functional organization; auditory evoked potential; surface microelectrode array; rat

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Existing studies have demonstrated interfield differences in functional organizations and neuronal responsive properties at a single neuron level in the auditory cortex, suggesting complicated encoding of sound frequency and intensity. The objective of present work is, by characterizing cortical auditory evoked potentials (AEPs), to bridge neural characteristics between a single neuron and field levels and to identify the interfield differences in the auditory cortex specifically in terms of spatial representation, which will be useful in guiding future unit studies. The AEP mapping found that each of auditory fields, which could be identified by a different tonotopic representation, showed interfield differences in an intensity-dependent spatial change, amplitude, latency, and amplitude-SPL (sound pressure level) function. These results also showed that many aspects of cortical representation were based on the cochlear properties, yet some were inconsistent. The intensity-dependent shift of activation in AI paralleled the tonotopic axis, which was similar to the place code in cochlea, while the shift in AAF and VAF did not parallel. Nevertheless, the amplitude-SPL function suggested that an underlying mechanism of all these shifts can be a compressive nonlinearity to CF tone, which is possibly formed in the cochlea and still preserved in the cortex. These results suggest that each field modifies the representation to handle a different aspect of sound information, which can be better analyzed than the cochlear representation. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available