Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30774587›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2019

Sensitivity to Vocalization Pitch in the Caudal Auditory Cortex of the Marmoset: Comparison of Core and Belt Areas.

Shuyu Zhu, Benjamin Allitt, Anil Samuel, Leo Lui, Marcello G P Rosa, Ramesh Rajan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shuyu ZhuBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Physiology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Benjamin AllittBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Physiology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Anil SamuelBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Physiology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Leo LuiBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Physiology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Marcello G P RosaBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Physiology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Ramesh RajanBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Physiology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Monash University · AUAustralian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AUAustralian Research Council · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on anatomical connectivity and basic response characteristics, primate auditory cortex is divided into a central core surrounded by belt and parabelt regions. The encoding of pitch, a prototypical element of sound identity, has been studied in primary auditory cortex (A1) but little is known about how it is encoded and represented beyond A1. The caudal auditory belt and parabelt cortical fields process spatial information but also contain information on non-spatial aspects of sounds. In this study, we examined neuronal responses in these areas to pitch-varied marmoset vocalizations, to derive the consequent representation of pitch in these regions and the potential underlying mechanisms, to compare to the encoding and representation of pitch of the same sounds in A1. With respect to response patterns to the vocalizations, neurons in caudal medial belt (CM) showed similar short-latency and short-duration response patterns to A1, but caudal lateral belt (CL) neurons at the same hierarchical level and caudal parabelt (CPB) neurons at a higher hierarchical level showed delayed or much delayed response onset and prolonged response durations. With respect to encoding of pitch, neurons in all cortical fields showed sensitivity to variations in the vocalization pitch either through modulation of spike-count or of first spike-latency. The utility of the encoding mechanism differed between fields: pitch sensitivity was reliably represented by spike-count variations in A1 and CM, while first spike-latency variation was better for encoding pitch in CL and CPB. In summary, our data show that (a) the traditionally-defined belt area CM is functionally very similar to A1 with respect to the representation and encoding of complex naturalistic sounds, (b) the CL belt area, at the same hierarchical level as CM, and the CPB area, at a higher hierarchical level, have very different response patterns and appear to use different pitch-encoding mechanisms, and (c) caudal auditory fields, proposed to be specialized for encoding spatial location, can also contain robust representations of sound identity.

Indexed as

caudal auditory cortexfirst spike-latency codenon-human primatespike-count codevocalization pitch representation

Identifiers

PMID30774587
PMCPMC6367263
OpenAlexW2912989812

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.