Are receptive fields fixed or fluid?

Authors

  • Jessica de Boer MRC Institute of Hearing Research, Nottingham, United Kingdom
  • Paul Briley Department of Psychology, University of York, York, United Kingdom
  • Katrin Krumbholz MRC Institute of Hearing Research, Nottingham, United Kingdom

Abstract

Neural representations of sensory stimuli are affected by stimulus- and task context. These effects can be long term, such as observed after intensive training or sensory deprivation, or short term, for instance when stimuli are repeated or attended. Long-term effects are generally associated with changes in neural receptive fields, such as expanded representation of, and increased selectivity for, learned features after training, or cortical remapping after hearing loss. In contrast, short-term context effects are usually explained in terms of either suppressive (e.g., repetition suppression) or facilitatory (e.g., attentional facilitation) gain control, without any change in neural coding parameters. More recent models, however, propose that short-term effects, such as repetition suppression or attention, act not only through gain control of neuron populations, but also change the receptive fields of individual neurons. In this view, receptive fields are considered not as fixed, but rather as fluid and instantly adaptable. In this paper, new data are presented, based on non-invasive electro-physiological recordings in humans, which support the notion that short-term context effects cause rapid receptive-field plasticity.

References

Ahveninen, J., Hamalainen, M., Jaaskelainen, I.P., Ahlfors, S.P., Huang, S., and Lin, F.H. (2011). “Attention-driven auditory cortex short-term plasticity helps segregate relevant sounds from noise,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 4182-4187.

Brimijoin, W.O., and O’Neill, W.E. (2010). “Patterned tone sequences reveal non-linear interactions in auditory spectrotemporal receptive fields in the inferior colliculus,” Hear Res., 267, 96-110.

de Boer, J., and Thornton, A.R. (2007). “Effect of subject task on contralateral suppression of click evoked otoacoustic emissions,” Hear. Res., 233, 117-123.

Eggermont, J.J., and Roberts, L.E. (2004). “The neuroscience of tinnitus,” Trends Neurosci., 27, 676-682.

Fritz, J., Shamma, S., Elhilali, M., and Klein, D. (2003). “Rapid task-related plasticity of spectrotemporal receptive fields in primary auditory cortex,” Nat. Neurosci., 6, 1216-1223.

Grill-Spector, K., and Malach, R. (2001). “fMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons,” Acta Psychol., 107, 293-321.

Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R., and Martin, A. (2006). “Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects,” Trends. Cogn. Sci., 10, 14-23.

Maison, S., Micheyl, C., and Collet, L. (2001). “Influence of focused auditory attention on cochlear activity in humans,” Psychophysiology, 38, 35-40.

May, P.J., and Tiitinen, H. (2010). “Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory deflection, explained,” Psychophysiology, 47, 66-122.

Mill, R., Coath, M., Wennekers, T., and Denham, S.L. (2011). “A neuro-computational model of stimulus-specific adaptation to oddball and Markov sequences,” PLoS Comput. Biol., 7, e1002117.

Murray, S.O., and Wojciulik, E. (2004). “Attention increases neural selectivity in the human lateral occipital complex,” Nat. Neurosci., 7, 70-74.

Polley, D.B., Steinberg, E.E., and Merzenich, M.M. (2006). “Perceptual learning directs auditory cortical map reorganization through top-down influences,” J. Neurosci., 26, 4970-4982.

Scharf, B., Quigley, S., Aoki, C., Peachey, N., and Reeves, A. (1987). “Focused auditory attention and frequency selectivity,” Percept. Psychophys., 42, 215-223.

Taaseh, N., Yaron, A., and Nelken, I. (2011). “Stimulus-specific adaptation and deviance detection in the rat auditory cortex,” PLoS One, 6, e23369.

Ulanovsky, N., Las, L., and Nelken I. (2003). “Processing of low-probability sounds by cortical neurons,” Nat. Neurosci., 6, 391-398.

Wehr, M., and Zador, A.M. (2005). “Synaptic mechanisms of forward suppression in rat auditory cortex,” Neuron, 47, 437-445.

Woldorff, M.G., Gallen, C.C., Hampson, S.A., Hillyard, S.A., Pantev, C., and Sobel, D. (1993). “Modulation of early sensory processing in human auditory cortex during auditory selective attention,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 90, 8722-8726.

Downloads

Published

2013-12-15

How to Cite

de Boer, J., Briley, P., & Krumbholz, K. (2013). Are receptive fields fixed or fluid?. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 4, 89–100. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2013-10

Issue

Vol. 4 (2013): Auditory Plasticity - Listening with the Brain

Section

2013/2. Physiological correlates and modeling of auditory plasticity

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright* and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

*From the 2017 issue onward. The Danavox Jubilee Foundation owns the copyright of all articles published in the 1969-2015 issues. However, authors are still allowed to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.