Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29281618›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

Physiological models of the lateral superior olive.

Go Ashida, Daniel J Tollin, Jutta Kretzberg

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Spiking Neural Networks and Mathematical Models.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Review
  4. A comparative study of eight human auditory models of monaural processing.Acta acustica. European Acoustics Association · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Across Species "Natural Ablation" Reveals the Brainstem Source of a Noninvasive Biomarker of Binaural Hearing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Go AshidaCluster of Excellence "Hearing4all", Department of Neuroscience, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8886-1213
Daniel J TollinDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6790-1290
Jutta KretzbergCluster of Excellence "Hearing4all", Department of Neuroscience, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9153-9324

Funding

Developmental effects of early hearing loss on auditory information processingR01DC011555 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI KLUG, ACHIM, TOLLIN, DANIEL J · 2012 to 2021
$4.4M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011555
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In computational biology, modeling is a fundamental tool for formulating, analyzing and predicting complex phenomena. Most neuron models, however, are designed to reproduce certain small sets of empirical data. Hence their outcome is usually not compatible or comparable with other models or datasets, making it unclear how widely applicable such models are. In this study, we investigate these aspects of modeling, namely credibility and generalizability, with a specific focus on auditory neurons involved in the localization of sound sources. The primary cues for binaural sound localization are comprised of interaural time and level differences (ITD/ILD), which are the timing and intensity differences of the sound waves arriving at the two ears. The lateral superior olive (LSO) in the auditory brainstem is one of the locations where such acoustic information is first computed. An LSO neuron receives temporally structured excitatory and inhibitory synaptic inputs that are driven by ipsi- and contralateral sound stimuli, respectively, and changes its spike rate according to binaural acoustic differences. Here we examine seven contemporary models of LSO neurons with different levels of biophysical complexity, from predominantly functional ones ('shot-noise' models) to those with more detailed physiological components (variations of integrate-and-fire and Hodgkin-Huxley-type). These models, calibrated to reproduce known monaural and binaural characteristics of LSO, generate largely similar results to each other in simulating ITD and ILD coding. Our comparisons of physiological detail, computational efficiency, predictive performances, and further expandability of the models demonstrate (1) that the simplistic, functional LSO models are suitable for applications where low computational costs and mathematical transparency are needed, (2) that more complex models with detailed membrane potential dynamics are necessary for simulation studies where sub-neuronal nonlinear processes play important roles, and (3) that, for general purposes, intermediate models might be a reasonable compromise between simplicity and biological plausibility.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAcoustic StimulationAnimalsCatsComputational BiologyComputer SimulationElectrophysiological PhenomenaNeuronsRodentiaSound LocalizationSuperior Olivary Complex

Identifiers

PMID29281618
PMCPMC5744914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.