Novelty detector neurons in the mammalian auditory midbrain

Pérez-González, David; Malmierca, Manuel S.; Covey, Ellen

doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04472.x

Cited by 212 publications

(225 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

210

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In non-specific adaptation, we expect that the response to the first stimulus in the sequence will be larger, further stimulation will result in adaptation that is independent of the type of stimulus (upper histogram in c). In SSA, we expect a stronger response every time the sequence is switched from one stimulus to the other (lower histogram in (c)) et al 2006), and auditory (Perez-Gonzalez et al 2005) pathways. In the auditory system, neurons sensitive to deviations were found at different levels of the pathway: in the inferior colliculus, the auditory thalamus and the auditory cortex (Malmierca et al 2009;Anderson et al 2009;Farley et al 2010;Antunes et al 2010;Ulanovsky et al 2004).…”

Section: Stimulus-specific Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulus-specific adaptation, habituation and change detection in the gaze control system

Gutfreund¹

2012

Biol Cybern

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This prospect article addresses the neurobiology of detecting and responding to changes or unexpected events. Change detection is an ongoing computational task performed by the brain as part of the broader process of saliency mapping and selection of the next target for attention. In the optic tectum (OT) of the barn owl, the probability of the stimulus has a dramatic influence on the neural response to that stimulus; rare or deviant stimuli induce stronger responses compared to common stimuli. This phenomenon, known as stimulus-specific adaptation, has recently attracted scientific interest because of its possible role in change detection. In the barn owl's OT, it may underlie the ability to orient specifically to unexpected events and is therefore opening new directions for research on the neurobiology of fundamental psychological phenomena such as habituation, attention, and surprise.

show abstract

Section: Stimulus-specific Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…1). Therefore, this phenomenon has been suggested as a single-unit neural correlate of the detection of unexpected stimuli (i.e., change detection, sometimes known as novelty detection; Ulanovsky et al 2003;Perez-Gonzalez et al 2005;Malmierca et al 2009). …”

Section: Stimulus-specific Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-specific adaptation, habituation and change detection in the gaze control system

Gutfreund¹

2012

Biol Cybern

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This, with all caution in comparing different neural scales, makes the RP a possible human electrophysiological counterpart of SSA, with which it shares many properties: both occur without overt attention to sounds, are stimulus-specific, and develop rapidly over multiple timescales (Baldeweg, 2007;Nelken and Ulanovsky, 2007;CostaFaidella et al, 2011). Although SSA literature is overwhelming (Ulanovsky et al, 2003(Ulanovsky et al, , 2004Pérez-González et al, 2005;Reches and Gutfreund, 2008;Anderson et al, 2009;Malmierca et al, 2009;Antunes et al, 2010;Farley et al, 2010;Zhao et al, 2011), to date, no study has attempted to explore SSA-timing interactions. To confirm that an irregular timing dampens the repetition effects on a neuronal scale, further research in animal models tapping the influence of timing predictability in the generation of SSA should prove instructive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the auditory system, repetition suppression spans multiple spatial and time scales, as revealed by animal single-cell recordings exhibiting stimulus-specific adaptation (SSA) in cortical and subcortical structures (Ulanovsky et al, 2003(Ulanovsky et al, , 2004Pérez-González et al, 2005;Reches and Gutfreund, 2008;Anderson et al, 2009;Malmierca et al, 2009;Antunes et al, 2010;Farley et al, 2010;Zhao et al, 2011), human long-and middle-latency auditory-evoked potentials (AEP) (Haenschel et al, 2005;Slabu et al, 2010;Costa-Faidella et al, 2011;, and fMRI studies (Mutschler et al, 2010). However, none of the abovementioned studies explored the influence of timing regularity on repetition suppression, a subject lightly tapped in human electrophysiology literature, leading to contradictory findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions between “What” and “When” in the Auditory System: Temporal Predictability Enhances Repetition Suppression

Costa‐Faidella

Baldeweg²,

Grimm³

et al. 2011

J. Neurosci.

137

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neural activity in the auditory system decreases with repeated stimulation, matching stimulus probability in multiple timescales. This phenomenon, known as stimulus-specific adaptation, is interpreted as a neural mechanism of regularity encoding aiding auditory object formation. However, despite the overwhelming literature covering recordings from single-cell to scalp auditory-evoked potential (AEP), stimulation timing has received little interest. Here we investigated whether timing predictability enhances the experience-dependent modulation of neural activity associated with stimulus probability encoding. We used human electrophysiological recordings in healthy participants who were exposed to passive listening of sound sequences. Pure tones of different frequencies were delivered in successive trains of a variable number of repetitions, enabling the study of sequential repetition effects in the AEP. In the predictable timing condition, tones were delivered with isochronous interstimulus intervals; in the unpredictable timing condition, interstimulus intervals varied randomly. Our results show that unpredictable stimulus timing abolishes the early part of the repetition positivity, an AEP indexing auditory sensory memory trace formation, while leaving the later part (ϳϾ200 ms) unaffected. This suggests that timing predictability aids the propagation of repetition effects upstream the auditory pathway, most likely from association auditory cortex (including the planum temporale) toward primary auditory cortex (Heschl's gyrus) and beyond, as judged by the timing of AEP latencies. This outcome calls for attention to stimulation timing in future experiments regarding sensory memory trace formation in AEP measures and stimulus probability encoding in animal models.

show abstract

“…It is not clear as to what may be causing these adaptive effects. One hypothesis is that the stimulation rates and patterns are overdriving the neurons located within the dorsal IC region, which receives a large number of projections from auditory and nonauditory centers (Winer, 2005) and may be designed for adapting to different stimuli (Perez-Gonzalez et al, 2005). We are currently investigating various stimulation strategies for effective and stable activation.…”

Section: Threshold and Comfortable Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrical Stimulation of the Midbrain for Hearing Restoration: Insight into the Functional Organization of the Human Central Auditory System

Lim¹,

Lenarz²,

Joseph³

et al. 2007

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cochlear implant can restore speech perception in patients with sensorineural hearing loss. However, it is ineffective for those without an implantable cochlea or a functional auditory nerve. These patients can be implanted with the auditory brainstem implant (ABI), which stimulates the surface of the cochlear nucleus. Unfortunately, the ABI has achieved limited success in its main patient group [i.e., those with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2)] and requires a difficult surgical procedure. These limitations have motivated us to develop a new hearing prosthesis that stimulates the midbrain with a penetrating electrode array. We recently implanted three patients with the auditory midbrain implant (AMI), and it has proven to be safe with minimal movement over time. The AMI provides loudness, pitch, temporal, and directional cues, features that have shown to be important for speech perception and more complex sound processing. Thus far, all three patients obtain enhancements in lip reading capabilities and environmental awareness and some improvements in speech perception comparable with that of NF2 ABI patients. Considering that our midbrain target is more surgically exposable than the cochlear nucleus, this argues for the use of the AMI as an alternative to the ABI. Fortunately, we were able to stimulate different midbrain regions in our patients and investigate the functional organization of the human central auditory system. These findings provide some insight into how we may need to stimulate the midbrain to improve hearing performance with the AMI.

show abstract

Novelty detector neurons in the mammalian auditory midbrain

Cited by 212 publications

References 35 publications

Stimulus-specific adaptation, habituation and change detection in the gaze control system

Stimulus-specific adaptation, habituation and change detection in the gaze control system

Interactions between “What” and “When” in the Auditory System: Temporal Predictability Enhances Repetition Suppression

Electrical Stimulation of the Midbrain for Hearing Restoration: Insight into the Functional Organization of the Human Central Auditory System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About