Literature DB >> 18287545

What's that sound? Auditory area CLM encodes stimulus surprise, not intensity or intensity changes.

Patrick Gill1, Sarah M N Woolley, Thane Fremouw, Frédéric E Theunissen.   

Abstract

High-level sensory neurons encoding natural stimuli are not well described by linear models operating on the time-varying stimulus intensity. Here we show that firing rates of neurons in a secondary sensory forebrain area can be better modeled by linear functions of how surprising the stimulus is. We modeled auditory neurons in the caudal lateral mesopallium (CLM) of adult male zebra finches under urethane anesthesia with linear filters convolved not with stimulus intensity, but with stimulus surprise. Surprise was quantified as the logarithm of the probability of the stimulus given the local recent stimulus history and expectations based on conspecific song. Using our surprise method, the predictions of neural responses to conspecific song improved by 67% relative to those obtained using stimulus intensity. Similar prediction improvements cannot be replicated by assuming CLM performs derivative detection. The explanatory power of surprise increased from the midbrain through the primary forebrain and to CLM. When the stimulus presented was a random synthetic ripple noise, CLM neurons (but not neurons in lower auditory areas) were best described as if they were expecting conspecific song, finding the inconsistencies between birdsong and noise surprising. In summary, spikes in CLM neurons indicate stimulus surprise more than they indicate stimulus intensity features. The concept of stimulus surprise may be useful for modeling neural responses in other higher-order sensory areas whose functions have been poorly understood.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18287545     DOI: 10.1152/jn.01270.2007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  33 in total

1.  Statistical learning of visual transitions in monkey inferotemporal cortex.

Authors:  Travis Meyer; Carl R Olson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Role of the zebra finch auditory thalamus in generating complex representations for natural sounds.

Authors:  Noopur Amin; Patrick Gill; Frédéric E Theunissen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  The information-divergence hypothesis of informational masking.

Authors:  Robert A Lutfi; Lynn Gilbertson; Inseok Heo; An-Chieh Chang; Jacob Stamas
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Linear and nonlinear auditory response properties of interneurons in a high-order avian vocal motor nucleus during wakefulness.

Authors:  Jonathan N Raksin; Christopher M Glaze; Sarah Smith; Marc F Schmidt
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 5.  Mechanisms of song perception in oscine birds.

Authors:  Daniel P Knudsen; Timothy Q Gentner
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 2.381

6.  Adaptation accentuates responses of fly motion-sensitive visual neurons to sudden stimulus changes.

Authors:  Rafael Kurtz; Martin Egelhaaf; Hanno Gerd Meyer; Roland Kern
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Anesthetic state modulates excitability but not spectral tuning or neural discrimination in single auditory midbrain neurons.

Authors:  Joseph W Schumacher; David M Schneider; Sarah M N Woolley
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-05-04       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Single-neuron encoding of surprise in auditory processing.

Authors:  Liisa A Tremere; Raphael Pinaud
Journal:  J Biosci       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.826

9.  Two-dimensional adaptation in the auditory forebrain.

Authors:  Tatyana O Sharpee; Katherine I Nagel; Allison J Doupe
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  The modulation transfer function for speech intelligibility.

Authors:  Taffeta M Elliott; Frédéric E Theunissen
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2009-03-06       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.