↓ Skip to main content

Different Stimuli, Different Spatial Codes: A Visual Map and an Auditory Rate Code for Oculomotor Space in the Primate Superior Colliculus

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
8 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Title
Different Stimuli, Different Spatial Codes: A Visual Map and an Auditory Rate Code for Oculomotor Space in the Primate Superior Colliculus
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0085017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jungah Lee, Jennifer M. Groh

Abstract

Maps are a mainstay of visual, somatosensory, and motor coding in many species. However, auditory maps of space have not been reported in the primate brain. Instead, recent studies have suggested that sound location may be encoded via broadly responsive neurons whose firing rates vary roughly proportionately with sound azimuth. Within frontal space, maps and such rate codes involve different response patterns at the level of individual neurons. Maps consist of neurons exhibiting circumscribed receptive fields, whereas rate codes involve open-ended response patterns that peak in the periphery. This coding format discrepancy therefore poses a potential problem for brain regions responsible for representing both visual and auditory information. Here, we investigated the coding of auditory space in the primate superior colliculus(SC), a structure known to contain visual and oculomotor maps for guiding saccades. We report that, for visual stimuli, neurons showed circumscribed receptive fields consistent with a map, but for auditory stimuli, they had open-ended response patterns consistent with a rate or level-of-activity code for location. The discrepant response patterns were not segregated into different neural populations but occurred in the same neurons. We show that a read-out algorithm in which the site and level of SC activity both contribute to the computation of stimulus location is successful at evaluating the discrepant visual and auditory codes, and can account for subtle but systematic differences in the accuracy of auditory compared to visual saccades. This suggests that a given population of neurons can use different codes to support appropriate multimodal behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
China 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 80 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 29%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 9 11%
Professor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 22%
Psychology 14 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 10 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. 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 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#443,489
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#6,447
of 194,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,259
of 329,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#222
of 5,535 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 329,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,535 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.