4.5 Article

Responses to linear and logarithmic frequency-modulated sweeps in ferret primary auditory cortex

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 549-562

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2000.00935.x

Keywords

auditory system; cluster activity; complex sounds; frequency modulation; topography

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multi-unit responses to frequency-modulated (FM) sweeps were studied in the primary auditory cortex of ferrets using six different stimulation paradigms. In particular, the differences between the responses to linear FM sweeps (where frequency changes linearly with time) and logarithmic FM sweeps (where frequency changes exponentially with time) were emphasized. Some general features of the responses to FM sweeps are independent of the exact details of the frequency trajectory. Both for linear and for logarithmic FM sweeps, a short burst of spikes occurred when the sweep reached a triggering frequency close to the best frequency of the cluster. The neuronal preference for FM velocity was also independent of frequency trajectory. Thus, clusters that responded best to slow logarithmic FM also preferred slow linear FM and vice versa. Consequently, topographic distributions of velocity preference were roughly independent of the stimulation paradigm. Other characteristics of the responses, however, depended on the exact details of the frequency trajectory. A significant number of clusters showed large differences in directional sensitivity between linear and logarithmic FM sweeps; these differences depended on the velocity preference of the clusters in some paradigms but not in others. Consequently, topographic distributions of directional sensitivity differed between linear and logarithmic paradigms. In conclusion, some characteristics of cluster responses to FM sweeps depend on the exact details of the stimulation paradigm and are not 'invariants' of the cluster.

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