Representation of species-specific vocalizations in the inferior colliculus of the guinea pig
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
12944528
DOI
10.1152/jn.01175.2002
PII: 01175.2002
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Acoustic Stimulation MeSH
- Inferior Colliculi anatomy & histology cytology physiology MeSH
- Electrophysiology MeSH
- Excitatory Postsynaptic Potentials physiology MeSH
- Guinea Pigs MeSH
- Neurons physiology MeSH
- Auditory Pathways cytology physiology MeSH
- Evoked Potentials, Auditory physiology MeSH
- Vocalization, Animal physiology MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Guinea Pigs MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
The responses of individual neurons to 4 typical guinea pig vocalization calls (purr, chutter, chirp, and whistle) were recorded in the inferior colliculus (IC) of anesthetized guinea pigs. All calls elicited a response in about 80% of units. Unit selectivity for individual calls was low, given that a majority of neurons (55% of 124 units) responded to all vocalizations and only a small portion of neurons (3%) responded to only one call or did not respond to any of the calls (3%). In 15% of units, the response to one call was > or =25% stronger than the response to any other sound (tone, noise, and other calls); these neurons were selective for chirp or whistle, and no unit preferred chutter or purr. Neuronal activity provided information about the spectrotemporal patterns of the calls. Peristimulus time histograms (PSTHs) reflected the energy of the near-characteristic frequency band, and the population PSTH reliably matched the sound envelope for calls characterized by one or more short impulses (chirp, purr, and chutter) but did not exactly fit the envelope for whistle--a slow-modulated and relatively long call. Calculations based on firing rates indicated the approximate positions of the main spectral peaks but did not always reflect their relative magnitude. The time-reversed version of whistle elicited on average a weaker response than did the natural whistle (by 24%), but there were neurons with a significantly stronger response to the natural ("forward-selective," 30%) as well as to the time-reversed whistle ("reverse-selective," 15%). This study does not prove the existence of units selectively responding to animal calls, but it provides evidence for the encoding of the spectrotemporal acoustic patterns of vocalizations by IC units.
References provided by Crossref.org
Formation and disruption of tonotopy in a large-scale model of the auditory cortex
Cortical representation of species-specific vocalizations in Guinea pig
Immunocytochemical profiles of inferior colliculus neurons in the rat and their changes with aging
Representation of species-specific vocalizations in the medial geniculate body of the guinea pig