2020
DOI: 10.3389/fncir.2020.00013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cortical Microcircuit Mechanisms of Mismatch Negativity and Its Underlying Subcomponents

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
57
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 194 publications
(280 reference statements)
4
57
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, tuned_in units also show strong MM responses [ Figure 4F , STD vs. CTR WT ( P = 1.04e-10) and FX ( P = 1.58e-7); STD vs. DEV WT ( P = 0.0003) and FX ( P = 0.0002), n = 249 and 184 units, Mann–Whitney U test]. This diverges from theories suggesting that enhancement of DEV response is primarily due to the non-adapted units in the local microcircuit (Ross and Hamm, 2020 ). The proportion of tuned_in units was comparable between genotypes ( Supplementary Figure 2 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Interestingly, tuned_in units also show strong MM responses [ Figure 4F , STD vs. CTR WT ( P = 1.04e-10) and FX ( P = 1.58e-7); STD vs. DEV WT ( P = 0.0003) and FX ( P = 0.0002), n = 249 and 184 units, Mann–Whitney U test]. This diverges from theories suggesting that enhancement of DEV response is primarily due to the non-adapted units in the local microcircuit (Ross and Hamm, 2020 ). The proportion of tuned_in units was comparable between genotypes ( Supplementary Figure 2 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…Mismatch responses, on the other hand, were more dependent on the laminar position rather than the tuning preference of units. MM responses were present in the adapted units, suggesting that single units might report mismatch despite strong adaptation levels (Ross and Hamm, 2020 ). L2/3 had the strongest MM responses in WT, but not in FX, where they were equally represented across the cortical column.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some researchers have cited a lack of cellular neurophysiological evidence for this interpretation; instead referring to known properties of sensory neurons, such as stimulus‐specific adaptation (SSA), as possible mechanisms of MMN generation (Jääskeläinen et al., 2004; May & Tiitinen, 2010; Ulanovsky et al., 2003). These two propositions, which are referred to as the memory and adaptation hypotheses of MMN, are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some researchers have pointed out (Fitzgerald & Todd, 2020; Garrido et al., 2009); although the extent of their relative contributions is unknown, and a description of the mechanism(s) underlying MMN generation remains incomplete (Ross & Hamm, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These fast-spiking GABAergic interneurons are thought to be particularly sensitive to NMDAr antagonists, notably because of the cortical excitation observed after acute NMDAr antagonist administration, which is possibly due to a preferential reduction in their firing, resulting in the disinhibition of excitatory pyramidal neurons 56 58 . A link between inhibition of GABAergic tone mediated by NMDAr hypofunction on interneurons and glutamatergic hyperexcitation has been proposed in a rat model of NMDAr antagonist repeated exposure 59 , and it has been reported that cortical PV- (along with somatostatin-) positive neurons influence representations of auditory stimuli (see Ross and Hamm for review 60 ). Therefore, the NMDAr hypofunction suggested by the MMN attenuation observed in this study might reflect a probable PCP-induced alteration of PV-positive neurons, which is thought to resemble an aspect of SZ 56 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%