Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23545427›Full record

ReviewHearing research2013

The dominant role of inhibition in creating response selectivities for communication calls in the brainstem auditory system.

George D Pollak

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hearing research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Deviance Detection to Natural Stimuli in Population Responses of the Brainstem of Bats.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. [Communication sound recognition and response modification in the secondary auditory cortex of female mice].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. GABAJournal of neurophysiology · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

George D PollakSection of Neurobiology and Center for Perceptual Systems, 337 Patterson Laboratory Building, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Electronic address: gpollak@austin.utexas.edu.

Funding

In-Vivo Patch Clamp Study of Auditory MidbrainR01DC007856 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI POLLAK, GEORGE D · 2007 to 2016
$3.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS DC007856NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC007856
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review is concerned with how communication calls are processed and represented by populations of neurons in both the inferior colliculus (IC), the auditory midbrain nucleus, and the dorsal nucleus of the lateral lemniscus (DNLL), the nucleus just caudal to the IC. The review has five sections where focus in each section is on inhibition and its role in shaping response selectivity for communication calls. In the first section, the lack of response selectivity for calls in DNLL neurons is presented and discusses why inhibition plays virtually no role in shaping selectivity. In the second section, the lack of selectivity in the DNLL is contrasted with the high degree of response selectivity in the IC. The third section then reviews how inhibition in the IC shapes response selectivities for calls, and how those selectivities can create a population response with a distinctive response profile to a particular call, which differs from the population profile evoked by any other call. The fourth section is concerned with the specifics of inhibition in the IC, and how the interaction of excitation and inhibition creates directional selectivities for frequency modulations, one of the principal acoustic features of communication signals. The two major hypotheses for directional selectivity are presented. One is the timing hypothesis, which holds that the precise timing of excitation relative to inhibition is the feature that shapes directionality. The other hypothesis is that the relative magnitudes of excitation and inhibition are the dominant features that shape directionality, where timing is relatively unimportant. The final section then turns to the role of serotonin, a neuromodulator that can markedly change responses to calls in the IC. Serotonin provides a linkage between behavioral states and processing. This linkage is discussed in the final section together with the hypothesis that serotonin acts to enhances the contrast in the population responses to various calls over and above the distinctive population responses that were created by inhibition. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Communication Sounds and the Brain: New Directions and Perspectives".

Indexed as

Neural InhibitionPattern Recognition, PhysiologicalVocalization, AnimalAcoustic StimulationAnimalsAuditory PathwaysBrain StemEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemInferior ColliculiReaction TimeSerotoninSpecies SpecificitySynaptic TransmissionTime FactorsSerotoninDNLLdorsal nucleus of the lateral lemniscusEPSPexcitatory post-synaptic potentialFMfrequency modulationICinferior colliculusinhibitory post-synaptic potentialIPSPmegaohmmillivoltmVMΩpost-synaptic potentialPSPSISimilarity indexspectrotemporal receptive fieldSTRF

Identifiers

PMID23545427
PMCPMC3778109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.