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, Sensory and Motor Systems

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

Jacob R. Pennington and Stephen V. David
eNeuro 27 October 2020, 7 (6) ENEURO.0205-20.2020; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0205-20.2020
Jacob R. Pennington
1Department of Mathematics, Washington State University, Vancouver, WA, 98686
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen V. David
2Department of Otolaryngology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 97239
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stephen V. David
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Schematic of four different model architectures for sound encoding by neurons in auditory cortex. A, Single neuron activity was recorded from A1 of awake, passively listening ferrets during presentation of a large set of natural sound stimuli. The trial-averaged response to each sound was calculated as the instantaneous firing rate using 10-ms bins. Sound waveforms were transformed into 18-channel spectrograms with log-spaced frequencies for input to the models. B, Linear nonlinear (LN) model: stimulus spectrogram is convolved with a linear spectro-temporal filter followed by nonlinear rectification. C, Short-term plasticity (STP) model: simulated synapses depress or facilitate spectral stimulus channels before temporal convolution. D, Gain control (GC) model: the coefficient of variation (contrast) of the stimulus spectrogram within a rolling window is summed across frequencies. Parameters for the nonlinear rectifier are scaled by time-varying contrast. E, Model performance is measured by the correlation coefficient (Pearson’s R) between the trial-averaged response and the model prediction. The four architectures were defined as follows: LN, B only; STP, B and C; GC, B and D; GC+STP, B–D.

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

    Comparison of model prediction accuracy. A, Median prediction correlation for each model (n = 468 neurons). Differences between LN and GC (*p = 7.54 × 10−30), GC and STP (*p = 5.00 × 10−4), and STP and GC+STP (*p = 2.02 × 10−27) models were all significant (two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test). B, Scatter plot compares prediction correlation by the LN model and combined GC+STP model for each neuron. Color indicates whether the combined model showed a significant improvement (red, p < 0.05, permutation test) or not (gray).

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

    Example model fits and predictions. A, Results from a neuron for which the STP and GC model predictions were not significantly better than the LN model prediction. Top left subpanel, Spectrogram from one natural sound in the validation set. Top right panel, Spectro-temporal filter from the LN model fit (right). Bottom panel, Actual PSTH response (light gray, filled) overlaid with predictions by the LN (dark gray), STP (blue), GC (green), and GC+STP (purple, dashed) models. Values at the bottom right of each panel indicate the prediction correlations for each model in the corresponding color. Below this list is the cell’s equivalence score (black, see Fig. 4B). The actual response was smoothed using a 30-ms boxcar filter for visualization. B, Comparison for a neuron for which the STP model performed significantly better than the LN and GC models, plotted as in A. Arrows indicate times for which the STP model successfully reproduced an increase in firing rate while the other models did not. The combined model prediction closely follows the STP model prediction. C, Comparison for a neuron for which the GC model performed significantly better than the LN and STP models. Right-most arrow indicates a time when the GC model successfully predicted an increase in firing rate while the LN and STP models did not, while the combined model closely followed the GC model. Middle arrow indicates a time when the STP model incorrectly predicted an increase in firing rate, and the combined model nearly matched the STP model. Left-most arrow shows a time when the combined model prediction differed from both the STP and GC model predictions to more closely match a strong onset response.

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

    Equivalence of model predictions. A, Difference in prediction correlation between the GC (horizontal axis) or STP (vertical axis) model and the LN model for each neuron (r = 0.18, *p = 6.42 × 10−5). Red points indicate neurons with a significant improvement for the GC+STP model over the LN model (p < 0.05, permutation test); gray points indicate neurons that were not improved. B, Histogram of model equivalence for each unit, measured as the partial correlation between time-varying response predicted by the STP and GC models relative to the LN model prediction. Median equivalence for improved cells (0.29, bottom, red) was significantly greater than for non-improved cells (0.17, top, gray; Mann–Whitney U test, *p = 1.72 × 10−8). Arrows indicate median partial correlation for the GC model (0.43, left) and the STP model (0.68, right) when compared within-model, adjusted for differences in estimation data. C, Scatter plot compares equivalence (vertical axis) versus effect size (horizontal axis), i.e., the average change in prediction correlation for the STP and GC models relative to the LN model, for improved cells. Only a weak relationship between equivalence and effect size was observed (r = 0.22, *p = 0.0103). D, Prediction correlations for the combined GC+STP model (vertical axis) and the maximum of the GC and STP models (horizontal axis) for improved cells. Median prediction correlation was significantly higher for the combined model (0.6568) than for the greater of the individual models (0.6319; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p = 1.41 × 10−14).

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Within-model equivalence ordered by response reliability. A, Scatter plot compares within-model equivalence scores for the STP model compared with response reliability (n = 237 neurons recorded with the larger stimulus set). Dashed line indicates median reliability. Within-model equivalence was significantly higher for neurons with above-median reliability (median high reliability: 0.61, low reliability: 0.36, Mann–Whitney U test, *p = 6.01 × 10−12). B, Within-model equivalence scores for the GC model versus reliability, plotted as in A. Again, within-model equivalence was significantly higher for neurons with above-median reliability (median high reliability: 0.42, low reliability: 0.25, *p = 3.91 × 10−5).

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Model performance for simulated data. A, Simulation based on the fitted LN model from Figure 3A. Simulated PSTH response to one stimulus (spectrogram at top) based on an LN model is plotted in gray shading. Predicted PSTHs for each model (LN, STP, or GC) are overlaid, and model prediction correlation is indicated at right (LN: dark gray, STP: blue, GC: green). For this linear neuron, all three models perform nearly identically. The linear filter fit using the LN model is shown at the top right. B, Model fits for simulation based on the STP model from Figure 3B, plotted as in A. C, Model fits for simulation based on the GC model from Figure 3C.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Parameter fit values for the STP model. A, Distribution of τ, representing the time constant for the recovery of synaptic vesicles, Top panel shows data for non-improved neurons (gray) and bottom panel for improved neurons (red). Median values for non-improved (0.0533 s) and improved (0.0833 s) neurons were significantly different (p = 3.53 × 10−6, two-sided Mann–Whitney U test, * p < 0.05), indicating a longer time constant for the improved cells. B, Distribution of u values, representing release probability (i.e., the fraction change in gain per unit of stimulus amplitude). Medians for non-improved (0.0128) and improved (0.0641) neurons were significantly different (p = 2.92 × 10−13), showing higher release probability for neurons with improved performance over the LN model.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Parameter fit values for the GC model. A, Histogram of effect of contrast on k, representing the slope of the output nonlinearity, plotted for non-improved neurons (gray, top) and improved neurons (red, bottom) as in Figure 7. The negative median value for improved (−0.14) cells indicates a decrease in slope during high-contrast conditions. This median was significantly more negative than for non-improved neurons (−0.042, p = 1.22 × 10−4, two-sided Mann–Whitney U test). Asterisk indicates p < 0.05. B, Histogram of contrast effect on a (saturation level), plotted as in A. Median values for non-improved (0.0031) and improved (−0.0156) neurons were significantly different, indicating a decreased response amplitude in high contrast conditions (p = 8.01 × 10−6). C, Histograms of contrast effect on b (baseline of the output nonlinearity). Medians for non-improved (0.0005) and improved (0.0058) neurons were significantly different, indicating an increase in baseline for high contrast (p = 5.90 × 10−7). D, Distribution of contrast effect on s (input offset). There was no significant difference between medians for non-improved (0.0088) and improved (0.0082) neurons (p = 0.85).

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    Mean evoked and spontaneous firing rates grouped by nonlinear model performance. A, Histograms of mean evoked firing rate for four mutually exclusive groups of neurons: no significant improvement in prediction accuracy for the nonlinear models (gray, top), significant improvement for the STP model relative to the LN model (blue, middle-top), significant improvement for the GC model relative to the LN model (green, middle-bottom), or significant improvement for both the STP and GC models or the GC+STP model (purple, bottom). Median evoked firing rate was significantly higher for the STP (11.7 spikes/s) and Both (12.7 spikes/s) groups than for the None group (7.31 spikes/s, Mann–Whitney U test, *p = 1.68 × 10−3 and *p = 2.67 × 10−3, respectively, adjusted for multiple comparisons). All other comparisons were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). B, Histograms of spontaneous firing rate for each model, plotted as in A. None of the groups was significantly different from the others (p > 0.05).

  • Figure 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10.

    Comparison of natural sound and clean/noisy vocalization properties. A, Top to bottom, stimulus spectrogram (blue), contrast (red), and frequency-summed contrast (black) for a sequence of three natural sound samples. B, Same as in A, but for vocalizations. The vocalization set contained interleaved trials of ferret vocalizations with and without additive noise. Black bar indicates segment with noise added.

  • Figure 11.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 11.

    Comparison of contrast properties between stimulus sets. A, Scatter plot of SD and mean level (dB SPL) for each natural sound spectrogram. The distribution indicates a smooth variation in contrast level. B, Comparison of SD and mean for clean/noisy vocalizations. There is a clear grouping of noisy (low-contrast) and clean (high-contrast) stimuli.

  • Figure 12.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 12.

    Comparison of model performance for data including clean and noisy vocalizations. A, Median prediction correlation (n = 141) for each model. Statistical significance of median differences was determined via two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (*p < 0.05). Unlike the natural sound data (Figure 2), performance was not significantly different between the GC and STP models. B, Change in prediction correlation for the GC (horizontal axis) and STP (vertical axis) models relative to the LN model for each neuron (r = 0.18, p = 3.45 × 10−2). C, Prediction correlations for the LN model compared with the combined model for each neuron, grouped by whether the combined model showed a significant improvement (red, n = 12, p < 0.05, permutation test) or not (gray, n = 129). D, Histogram of equivalence for non-improved (top, gray) and improved neurons (bottom, red). Median equivalence for improved cells (0.30) was significantly greater than for non-improved cells (0.16, Mann–Whitney U test, *p = 0.0449).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Statistical tests reported in the Results, labeled in the text by the letters in the left-hand column

    DistributionTestStatisticp valueSample sizeanimals
    aNon-parametricPermutation testN/Ap < 0.05, 468 sig.n = 540n = 7
    bNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rankT = 2.17 × 104 p = 7.54 × 10−30 n = 468n = 7
    cNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 468n = 7
    dNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 468n = 7
    eNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 468n = 7
    fNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 468n = 7
    gNon-parametricJackknife t testT (varies)p < 0.05, 132 sig.n = 468n = 7
    hNormal (residuals)Pearson’s correlationr = 0.18 Embedded Image n = 468n = 7
    iNormal (residuals)Pearson’s correlationr = 0.31 Embedded Image n = 237n = 2
    jNormal (residuals)Pearson’s correlationr = 0.50 Embedded Image n = 237n = 2
    kNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132, 336n = 7
    lNormal (residuals)Pearson’s correlationr = 0.22p = 0.0103n = 132n = 7
    mNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132n = 7
    nNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 119, 118n = 2
    oNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 119, 118n = 2
    pNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 93, 141n = 7
    qNormal (residuals)Pearson’s correlationr = 0.34 Embedded Image n = 234n = 7
    rNormal (residuals)Pearson’s correlationr = 0.66 Embedded Image n = 122n = 2
    sNormal (residuals)Pearson’s correlationr = 0.41 Embedded Image n = 122n = 2
    tNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132, 336n = 7
    uNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132, 336n = 7
    vNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132, 336n = 7
    wNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132, 336n = 7
    xNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132, 336n = 7
    yNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132, 336n = 7
    zNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    aaNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    bbNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    ccNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    ddNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    eeNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    ffNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    ggNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    hhNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    iiNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image p* = 1.00n = 132, 336n = 7
    jjNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132, 336n = 7
    kkNon-parametricMann–Whitney U Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 132, 336n = 7
    llNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 141n = 6
    mmNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 141n = 6
    nnNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 141n = 6
    ooNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image Embedded Image n = 141n = 6
    ppNon-parametricWilcoxon signed-rank Embedded Image p = 0.105n = 141n = 6
    qqNormal (residuals)Pearson’s Correlationr = 0.18p = 0.0345n = 141n = 6
    rrNon-parametricMann–Whitney UU = 5.02 × 102 p = 0.0449n = 12, 129n = 6
    • p* indicates Bonferroni-adjusted p values for 12 multiple comparisons.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 7 (6)
eNeuro
Vol. 7, Issue 6
November/December 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.
Complementary Effects of Adaptation and Gain Control on Sound Encoding in Primary Auditory Cortex
(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
Complementary Effects of Adaptation and Gain Control on Sound Encoding in Primary Auditory Cortex
Jacob R. Pennington, Stephen V. David
eNeuro 27 October 2020, 7 (6) ENEURO.0205-20.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0205-20.2020

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
Complementary Effects of Adaptation and Gain Control on Sound Encoding in Primary Auditory Cortex
Jacob R. Pennington, Stephen V. David
eNeuro 27 October 2020, 7 (6) ENEURO.0205-20.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0205-20.2020
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Keywords

  • auditory encoding
  • computational modeling
  • gain control
  • sensory context
  • synaptic adaptation

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
  • Transformed visual working memory representations in human occipitotemporal and posterior parietal cortices
Show more Research Article: New Research

Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Action intentions reactivate representations of task-relevant cognitive cues
  • Interference underlies attenuation upon relearning in sensorimotor adaptation
  • Rod Inputs Arrive at Horizontal Cell Somas in Mouse Retina Solely via Rod–Cone Coupling
Show more Sensory and Motor Systems

Subjects

  • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • 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.