4.4 Article

Corticofugal feedback for collicular plasticity evoked by electric stimulation of the inferior colliculus

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 94, Issue 4, Pages 2676-2682

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00549.2005

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC-00175] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Focal electric stimulation of the auditory cortex, 30-min repetitive acoustic stimulation, and auditory fear conditioning each evoke shifts of the frequency-tuning curves [ hereafter, best frequency (BF) shifts] of cortical and collicular neurons. The short-term collicular BF shift is produced by the corticofugal system and primarily depends on the relationship in BF between a recorded collicular and a stimulated cortical neuron or between the BF of a recorded collicular neuron and the frequency of an acoustic stimulus. However, it has been unknown whether focal electric stimulation of the inferior colliculus evokes the collicular BF shift and whether the collicular BF shift, if evoked, depends on corticofugal feedback. In our present research with the awake big brown bat, we found that focal electric stimulation of collicular neurons evoked the BF shifts of collicular neurons located near the stimulated ones; that there were two types of BF shifts: centripetal and centrifugal BF shifts, i.e., shifts toward and shifts away from the BF of stimulated neurons, respectively; and that the development of these collicular BF shifts was blocked by inactivation of the auditory cortex. Our data indicate that the collicular BF shifts ( plasticity) evoked by collicular electric stimulation depended on corticofugal feedback. It should be noted that collicular BF shifts also depend on acetylcholine because it has been demonstrated that atropine ( an antagonist of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors) applied to the IC blocks the development of collicular BF shifts.

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