↓ Skip to main content

Inhibition does not affect the timing code for vocalizations in the mouse auditory midbrain

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Inhibition does not affect the timing code for vocalizations in the mouse auditory midbrain
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2014.00140
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Many animals use a diverse repertoire of complex acoustic signals to convey different types of information to other animals. The information in each vocalization therefore must be coded by neurons in the auditory system. One way in which the auditory system may discriminate among different vocalizations is by having highly selective neurons, where only one or two different vocalizations evoke a strong response from a single neuron. Another strategy is to have specific spike timing patterns for particular vocalizations such that each neural response can be matched to a specific vocalization. Both of these strategies seem to occur in the auditory midbrain of mice. The neural mechanisms underlying rate and time coding are unclear, however, it is likely that inhibition plays a role. Here, we examined whether inhibition is involved in shaping neural selectivity to vocalizations via rate and/or time coding in the mouse inferior colliculus (IC). We examined extracellular single unit responses to vocalizations before and after iontophoretically blocking GABAA and glycine receptors in the IC of awake mice. We then applied a number of neurometrics to examine the rate and timing information of individual neurons. We initially evaluated the neuronal responses using inspection of the raster plots, spike-counting measures of response rate and stimulus preference, and a measure of maximum available stimulus-response mutual information. Subsequently, we used two different event sequence distance measures, one based on vector space embedding, and one derived from the Victor/Purpura D q metric, to direct hierarchical clustering of responses. In general, we found that the most salient feature of pharmacologically blocking inhibitory receptors in the IC was the lack of major effects on the functional properties of IC neurons. Blocking inhibition did increase response rate to vocalizations, as expected. However, it did not significantly affect spike timing, or stimulus selectivity of the studied neurons. We observed two main effects when inhibition was locally blocked: (1) Highly selective neurons maintained their selectivity and the information about the stimuli did not change, but response rate increased slightly. (2) Neurons that responded to multiple vocalizations in the control condition, also responded to the same stimuli in the test condition, with similar timing and pattern, but with a greater number of spikes. For some neurons the information rate generally increased, but the information per spike decreased. In many of these neurons, vocalizations that generated no responses in the control condition generated some response in the test condition. Overall, we found that inhibition in the IC does not play a substantial role in creating the distinguishable and reliable neuronal temporal spike patterns in response to different vocalizations.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2014.
All research outputs
#20,228,193
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,328
of 13,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,170
of 203,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#78
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 203,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.