Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleResearch Article: New Research, Cognition and Behavior

Effects of Inactivation of the Periaqueductal Gray on Song Production in Testosterone-Treated Male Canaries (Serinus canaria)

Chelsea M. Haakenson, Jacques Balthazart and Gregory F. Ball
eNeuro 31 July 2020, 7 (4) ENEURO.0048-20.2020; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0048-20.2020
Chelsea M. Haakenson
1Program in Neuroscience and Cognitive Science, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Chelsea M. Haakenson
Jacques Balthazart
2Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroendocrinology, GIGA Neurosciences, University of Liege, 15 Avenue Hippocrate, 4000, Liege, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jacques Balthazart
Gregory F. Ball
1Program in Neuroscience and Cognitive Science, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gregory F. Ball
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Extended Data
  • Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Experimental procedures. A, Timeline of experimental procedures (left) and image of cannula trajectory (right) created with BioRender. B, Coronal sections demonstrating final placement of cannula targets after surgery, four in PAG, five in ICo, and five misses. C, Example images of muscimol spread for an individual where cannula placement was on the lateral edge of PAG. Left is a Nissl brightfield photomicrograph showing the location of PAG and right is the corresponding fluorescent photomicrograph.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Change in latency to begin singing post-infusion. Differences in latency for each individual across trial type. Each line connects the average latency to sing following muscimol infusion to the average latency following saline infusion for an individual bird. Black lines indicate summary statistics (mean and SEM), while colored lines indicate the average latency for each individual bird. Individual points indicate the latency for each single trial. The three sections of the graph represent cannula placement (ICo, miss, or PAG). In order to determine whether an ANOVA was appropriate to determine differences between treatments, we tested the assumption of homoscedasticity (Extended Data Fig. 2-1A). To further assess the differences between groups and treatments, we used bootstrapped estimation statistics of 95% CIs (Extended Data Fig. 2-1B).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Example song quality measurements. A, The amount of time in minutes spent singing 1 h after singing began. There were no significant differences between treatments or cannula placement. The three sections of the graph represent cannula placement (ICo, miss, or PAG). B, The average duration of songs in seconds. There were no significant differences between treatments or cannula placement. C, Average change in RMS amplitude between treatments (muscimol minus saline). There was a significant interaction between treatment and cannula placement but no main effect. Each line connects the average data following muscimol infusion to the average data following saline infusion. Black lines indicate summary statistics (mean and SEM), while colored lines indicate the average data for each individual bird.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    There were no significant differences in call rate in the hour following infusion. Difference between muscimol and saline trials (average number of calls following muscimol infusion minus average number of calls following saline infusion) for individual birds. Colors represent cannula placement. Each line connects the average call rate following muscimol infusion to the average call rate following saline infusion. Black lines indicate summary statistics (mean and SEM), while colored lines indicate the average data for each individual bird.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Extended Data
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Results of two-way repeated measures ANOVA of song quality measures

    Song measureFactordfFpEstimation statistics
    difference (muscimol – saline)
    Number of songsCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    0.328
    0.005
    1.855
    0.728
    0.944
    0.206
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    8.5
    –23.4
    25.2
    95 CI [–6.67; 22.3]
    95 CI [–9.83; 140]
    95 CI [–9.83; 140]
    Time spentsingingCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    0.574
    0.130
    1.359
    0.581
    0.726
    0.301
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    24.6
    –117
    230
    95 CI [–58.9; 89.3]
    95 CI [–229; –20.2]
    95 CI [–56.5; 1240]
    Average songdurationCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    0.662
    0.164
    0.626
    0.537
    0.694
    0.554
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    –0.88
    0.089
    0.256
    95 CI [–3.34; 1.35]
    95 CI [–1.06; 1.55]
    95 CI [–1.56; 1.77]
    Average intersongintervalCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    0.757
    0.0
    0.2
    0.494
    0.985
    0.822
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    –13.6
    9.61
    39
    95 CI [–153; 43.4]
    95 CI [–147; 166]
    95 CI [–180; 203]
    Average songelementsCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    0.747
    0.407
    0.354
    0.499
    0.538
    0.710
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    1
    –0.661
    1.3
    95 CI [–1.78; 6.86]
    95 CI [–14; 14]
    95 CI [–1.89; 6.2]
    Average energyCannula placement20.6070.564ICo0.000295 CI [0.00004; 0.0006]
    Treatment interaction10.0010.989Miss–0.00000895 CI [–0.0009; 0.0001]
    22.5410.128PAG–0.000395 CI [–0.0009; 0.0001]
    Average peak topeak amplitudeCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    1.12
    0.753
    2.616
    0.372
    0.411
    0.134
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    0.014
    0.003
    –0.037
    95 CI [0.001; 0.038]
    95 CI [–0.014; 0.026]
    95 CI [–0.083; 0.008]
    Average RMSCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    0.485
    0.312
    4.828
    0.629
    0.589
    0.034*
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    0.528
    0.796
    –2.43
    95 CI [–0.002; 1.52]
    95 CI [–0.942; 2.31]
    95 CI [–5.19; 0.123]
    Average entropyCannula placement20.0070.993ICo0.000995 CI [–0.010; 0.008]
    Treatment interaction11.6830.224Miss–0.000995 CI [–0.007; 0.002]
    20.1710.845PAG0.000495 CI [–0.014; 0.012]
    Max. fundamentalfrequencyCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    0.385
    1.274
    0.014
    0.690
    0.285
    0.986
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    –52.4
    –80
    –44.3
    95 CI [–363; 225]
    95 CI [–221; 85.2]
    95 CI [–613; 614]
    Max. bandwidthCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    0.343
    0.084
    0.747
    0.718
    0.778
    0.498
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    110
    –43.4
    –79.4
    95 CI [–129; 495]
    95 CI [–286; 37]
    95 CI [–348; 271]
    Max. peakamplitudeCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    0.641
    0.512
    2.214
    0.547
    0.491
    0.160
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    0.332
    0.15
    –2.88
    95 CI [–1.94; 2.43]
    95 CI [–3.64; 2.84]
    95 CI [–6.2; –0.045]
    Max. peakfrequencyCannula placement
    Treatment interaction
    2
    1
    2
    1.033
    1.184
    0.236
    0.391
    0.302
    0.794
    ICo
    Miss
    PAG
    7.83
    –182
    –148
    95 CI [–217; 149]
    95 CI [–749; 45.9]
    95 CI [–730; 492]

Extended Data

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Extended Data Figure 2-1

    Plots supporting statistical analysis of latency data. A, Plot showing homoscedasticity assumption for ANOVA. Distribution of residuals are plotted against treatment and brain region targeted. B, Plot of CIs of differences between muscimol trials and saline trials bootstrapped 5000 times. Download Figure 2-1, EPS file.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 7 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 7, Issue 4
July/August 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of Inactivation of the Periaqueductal Gray on Song Production in Testosterone-Treated Male Canaries (Serinus canaria)
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Effects of Inactivation of the Periaqueductal Gray on Song Production in Testosterone-Treated Male Canaries (Serinus canaria)
Chelsea M. Haakenson, Jacques Balthazart, Gregory F. Ball
eNeuro 31 July 2020, 7 (4) ENEURO.0048-20.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0048-20.2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Effects of Inactivation of the Periaqueductal Gray on Song Production in Testosterone-Treated Male Canaries (Serinus canaria)
Chelsea M. Haakenson, Jacques Balthazart, Gregory F. Ball
eNeuro 31 July 2020, 7 (4) ENEURO.0048-20.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0048-20.2020
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • motivation
  • periaqueductal gray
  • singing behavior
  • songbird

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Article: New Research

  • Release of extracellular matrix components after human traumatic brain injury
  • Action intentions reactivate representations of task-relevant cognitive cues
  • Interference underlies attenuation upon relearning in sensorimotor adaptation
Show more Research Article: New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • Transformed visual working memory representations in human occipitotemporal and posterior parietal cortices
  • Neural Speech-Tracking During Selective Attention: A Spatially Realistic Audiovisual Study
  • Nucleus Accumbens Dopamine Encodes the Trace Period during Appetitive Pavlovian Conditioning
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.