Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33109632›Full record

ArticleeNeuro

Complementary Effects of Adaptation and Gain Control on Sound Encoding in Primary Auditory Cortex.

Jacob R Pennington, Stephen V David

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Interference of Mid-level Speech and Noise Statistics Underlies Human Speech Recognition Sensitivity in Natural Environmental Noise.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jacob R PenningtonDepartment of Mathematics, Washington State University, Vancouver, WA, 98686.
Stephen V DavidDepartment of Otolaryngology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 97239 davids@ohsu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4135-3104
Oregon Health & Science University · USWashington State University Vancouver · US

Funding

Top-down control of auditory processing in the cortico-collicular network (Administrative Supplement)R01DC014950 · NIDCD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI DAVID, STEPHEN V · 2016 to 2025
$3.5M
Tools for modeling state-dependent sensory encoding by neural populations across spatial and temporal scalesR01EB028155 · NIBIB · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI DAVID, STEPHEN V, MESGARANI, NIMA · 2019 to 2023
$1.2M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB028155NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An important step toward understanding how the brain represents complex natural sounds is to develop accurate models of auditory coding by single neurons. A commonly used model is the linear-nonlinear spectro-temporal receptive field (STRF; LN model). The LN model accounts for many features of auditory tuning, but it cannot account for long-lasting effects of sensory context on sound-evoked activity. Two mechanisms that may support these contextual effects are short-term plasticity (STP) and contrast-dependent gain control (GC), which have inspired expanded versions of the LN model. Both models improve performance over the LN model, but they have never been compared directly. Thus, it is unclear whether they account for distinct processes or describe one phenomenon in different ways. To address this question, we recorded activity of neurons in primary auditory cortex (A1) of awake ferrets during presentation of natural sounds. We then fit models incorporating one nonlinear mechanism (GC or STP) or both (GC+STP) using this single dataset, and measured the correlation between the models' predictions and the recorded neural activity. Both the STP and GC models performed significantly better than the LN model, but the GC+STP model outperformed both individual models. We also quantified the equivalence of STP and GC model predictions and found only modest similarity. Consistent results were observed for a dataset collected in clean and noisy acoustic contexts. These results establish general methods for evaluating the equivalence of arbitrarily complex encoding models and suggest that the STP and GC models describe complementary processes in the auditory system.

Indexed as

Auditory CortexAcoustic StimulationAuditory PerceptionModels, NeurologicalSoundauditory encodingcomputational modelinggain controlsensory contextsynaptic adaptation

Identifiers

PMID33109632
PMCPMC7675144
OpenAlexW3095992367

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.