4.4 Article

Spatial sensitivity in field PAF of cat auditory cortex

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 89, 期 6, 页码 2889-2903

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00980.2002

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41-RR-09754] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [P30-DC-05188, P30 DC005188, T323-DC-00011, P01-DC-00078, R01-DC-00420] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared the spatial tuning properties of neurons in two fields [primary auditory cortex (A1) and posterior auditory field (PAF)] of cat auditory cortex. Broadband noise bursts of 80-ms duration were presented from loudspeakers throughout 360degrees in the horizontal plane (azimuth) or 260degrees in the vertical median plane (elevation). Sound levels varied from 20 to 40 dB above units' thresholds. We recorded neural spike activity simultaneously from 16 sites in field PAF and/or A1 of alpha-chloralose-anesthetized cats. We assessed spatial sensitivity by examining the dependence of spike count and response latency on stimulus location. In addition, we used an artificial neural network (ANN) to assess the information about stimulus location carried by spike patterns of single units and of ensembles of 2-32 units. The results indicate increased spatial sensitivity, more uniform distributions of preferred locations, and greater tolerance to changes in stimulus intensity among PAF units relative to A1 units. Compared to A1 units, PAF units responded at significantly longer latencies, and latencies varied more strongly with stimulus location. ANN analysis revealed significantly greater information transmission by spike patterns of PAF than A1 units, primarily reflecting the information transmitted by latency variation in PAF. Finally, information rates grew more rapidly with the number of units included in neural ensembles for PAF than A1. The latter finding suggests more accurate population coding of space in PAF, made possible by a more diverse population of neural response types.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据