ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
STRFs in primary auditory cortex emerge from masking-based statistics of natural sounds.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inference and Learning in a Latent Variable Model for Beta Distributed Interval Data.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Fronto-Temporal Coupling Dynamics During Spontaneous Activity and Auditory Processing in the BatFrontiers in systems neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We investigate how the neural processing in auditory cortex is shaped by the statistics of natural sounds. Hypothesising that auditory cortex (A1) represents the structural primitives out of which sounds are composed, we employ a statistical model to extract such components. The input to the model are cochleagrams which approximate the non-linear transformations a sound undergoes from the outer ear, through the cochlea to the auditory nerve. Cochleagram components do not superimpose linearly, but rather according to a rule which can be approximated using the max function. This is a consequence of the compression inherent in the cochleagram and the sparsity of natural sounds. Furthermore, cochleagrams do not have negative values. Cochleagrams are therefore not matched well by the assumptions of standard linear approaches such as sparse coding or ICA. We therefore consider a new encoding approach for natural sounds, which combines a model of early auditory processing with maximal causes analysis (MCA), a sparse coding model which captures both the non-linear combination rule and non-negativity of the data. An efficient truncated EM algorithm is used to fit the MCA model to cochleagram data. We characterize the generative fields (GFs) inferred by MCA with respect to in vivo neural responses in A1 by applying reverse correlation to estimate spectro-temporal receptive fields (STRFs) implied by the learned GFs. Despite the GFs being non-negative, the STRF estimates are found to contain both positive and negative subfields, where the negative subfields can be attributed to explaining away effects as captured by the applied inference method. A direct comparison with ferret A1 shows many similar forms, and the spectral and temporal modulation tuning of both ferret and model STRFs show similar ranges over the population. In summary, our model represents an alternative to linear approaches for biological auditory encoding while it captures salient data properties and links inhibitory subfields to explaining away effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.