ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2025
Hierarchical emergence of opponent coding in auditory belt cortex.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchical transformations in sound envelope encoding differ across cortical layers.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2026Article
- Decoding of frequency-modulated sweeps by core and belt neurons in the alert macaque auditory cortex.Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Interareal and interlaminar differences in sound envelope encoding in core and parabelt auditory cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We recorded from neurons in primary auditory cortex (A1) and middle-lateral belt area (ML) while rhesus macaques either discriminated amplitude-modulated noise (AM) from unmodulated noise or passively heard the same stimuli. We used several post hoc pooling models to investigate the ability of auditory cortex to leverage population coding for AM detection. We find that pooled-response AM detection is better in the active condition than the passive condition, and better using rate-based coding than synchrony-based coding. Neurons can be segregated into two classes based on whether they increase (INC) or decrease (DEC) their firing rate in response to increasing modulation depth. In these samples, A1 had relatively fewer DEC neurons (26%) than ML (45%). When responses were pooled without segregating these classes, AM detection using rate-based coding was much better in A1 than in ML, but when pooling only INC neurons, AM detection in ML approached that found in A1. Pooling only DEC neurons resulted in impaired AM detection in both areas. To investigate the role of DEC neurons, we devised two pooling methods that opposed DEC and INC neurons-a direct subtractive method and a two-pool push-pull opponent method. Only the push-pull opponent method resulted in superior AM detection relative to indiscriminate pooling. In the active condition, the opponent method was superior to pooling only INC neurons during the late portion of the response in ML. These results suggest that the increasing prevalence of the DEC response type in ML can be leveraged by appropriate methods to improve AM detection.
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.