Species-specific vocalizations in mice have frequency-modulated (FM) components slower than the lower limit of FM direction selectivity in the core region of the mouse auditory cortex. To identify cortical areas selective to slow frequency modulation, we investigated tonal responses in the mouse auditory cortex using transcranial flavoprotein fluorescence imaging. For differentiating responses to frequency modulation from those to stimuli at constant frequencies, we focused on transient fluorescence changes after direction reversal of temporally repeated and superimposed FM sweeps. We found that the ultrasonic field (UF) in the belt cortical region selectively responded to the direction reversal. The dorsoposterior field (DP) also responded weakly to the reversal. Regarding the responses in UF, no apparent tonotopic map was found, and the right UF responses were significantly larger in amplitude than the left UF responses. The half-max latency in responses to FM sweeps was shorter in UF compared with that in the primary auditory cortex (A1) or anterior auditory field (AAF). Tracer injection experiments in the functionally identified UF and DP confirmed that these two areas receive afferent inputs from the dorsal part of the medial geniculate nucleus (MG). Calcium imaging of UF neurons stained with fura-2 were performed using a two-photon microscope, and the presence of UF neurons that were selective to both direction and direction reversal of slow frequency modulation was demonstrated. These results strongly suggest a role for UF, and possibly DP, as cortical areas specialized for processing slow frequency modulation in mice.

Objective: To establish a questionnaire to diagnose and assess the severity of persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD). Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: Fifty PPPD patients and 50 consecutive control patients with other vestibular disorders. Interventions: Patients answered questions on three exacerbating factors of PPPD (upright posture/walking, movement, and visual stimulation), and each factor was evaluated using four questions scoring the severity from 0 (none) to 6 (unbearable). Somatic and psychological distress was evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), respectively. Main Outcome Measures: The questionnaire's reliability was tested by Cronbach's alpha, and it was validated by examining the differences in the questionnaire's scores between PPPD patients and controls. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve for each factor was calculated. Results: Cronbach's alpha coefficient was >0.8 for all factors, except the movement factor. There were no significant differences in the VAS and HADS scores between the two groups. However, the combined and individual questionnaire scores for each factor were higher in PPPD patients than in controls, indicating the questionnaire's high validity. The AUC was widest for the visual stimulation factor (0.830), and a score of 9 (full score 24) had the best sensitivity (82%) and specificity (74%) for discriminating PPPD patients from controls. Conclusions: We developed a questionnaire that exhibited high reliability and validity in evaluating PPPD severity. The visual stimulation factor may be the most characteristic among the three exacerbating factors.

No abstract