4.5 Article

Characterisation of multiple physiological fields within the anatomical core of rat auditory cortex

Journal

HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 181, Issue 1-2, Pages 116-130

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-5955(03)00182-5

Keywords

auditory cortex; microelectrode mapping; rat; temporal cortex 1

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC-02398, DC-02346] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH-57235] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The organisation and response properties of the rat auditory cortex were investigated with single and multi-unit electrophysiological recording. Two tonotopically organised 'core' fields, i.e. the primary (A1) and anterior (AAF) auditory fields, as well as three non-tonotopically organised 'belt' fields, i.e. the posterodorsal (PDB), dorsal (DB) and anterodorsal (ADB) belt fields, were identified. Compared to neurones in A1, units in AAF exhibited broader frequency tuning, as well as shorter minimum, modal and mean first spike latencies. In addition, units in AAF showed significantly higher thresholds and best SPLs, as well as broader dynamic ranges. Units in PDB, DB and ADB were characterised by strong responses to white noise and showed either poor or no responses to pure tones. The differences in response properties found between the core and belt fields may reflect a functional specificity in processing different features of auditory stimuli. The present study also combined microelectrode mapping with Nissl staining to determine if the physiological differences between A1 and AAF corresponded to cytoarchitectonically defined borders. Both A1 and AAF were located within temporal cortex 1 (Tel), with AAF occupying an anteroventral subdivision of Tel, indicating that the two neighbouring, physiologically distinct fields are cytoarchitectonically homogeneous. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science 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