↓ Skip to main content

Responses of neurons in the marmoset primary auditory cortex to interaural level differences: comparison of pure tones and vocalizations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
39 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.
Title
Responses of neurons in the marmoset primary auditory cortex to interaural level differences: comparison of pure tones and vocalizations
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00132
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leo L. Lui, Yasamin Mokri, David H. Reser, Marcello G. P. Rosa, Ramesh Rajan

Abstract

Interaural level differences (ILDs) are the dominant cue for localizing the sources of high frequency sounds that differ in azimuth. Neurons in the primary auditory cortex (A1) respond differentially to ILDs of simple stimuli such as tones and noise bands, but the extent to which this applies to complex natural sounds, such as vocalizations, is not known. In sufentanil/N2O anesthetized marmosets, we compared the responses of 76 A1 neurons to three vocalizations (Ock, Tsik, and Twitter) and pure tones at cells' characteristic frequency. Each stimulus was presented with ILDs ranging from 20 dB favoring the contralateral ear to 20 dB favoring the ipsilateral ear to cover most of the frontal azimuthal space. The response to each stimulus was tested at three average binaural levels (ABLs). Most neurons were sensitive to ILDs of vocalizations and pure tones. For all stimuli, the majority of cells had monotonic ILD sensitivity functions favoring the contralateral ear, but we also observed ILD sensitivity functions that peaked near the midline and functions favoring the ipsilateral ear. Representation of ILD in A1 was better for pure tones and the Ock vocalization in comparison to the Tsik and Twitter calls; this was reflected by higher discrimination indices and greater modulation ranges. ILD sensitivity was heavily dependent on ABL: changes in ABL by ±20 dB SPL from the optimal level for ILD sensitivity led to significant decreases in ILD sensitivity for all stimuli, although ILD sensitivity to pure tones and Ock calls was most robust to such ABL changes. Our results demonstrate differences in ILD coding for pure tones and vocalizations, showing that ILD sensitivity in A1 to complex sounds cannot be simply extrapolated from that to pure tones. They also show A1 neurons do not show level-invariant representation of ILD, suggesting that such a representation of auditory space is likely to require population coding, and further processing at subsequent hierarchical stages.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Chile 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 36%
Neuroscience 13 33%
Unspecified 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 6 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,783,193
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,012
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,917
of 279,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#69
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 279,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.