Parallel Lemniscal and Non-Lemniscal Sources Control Auditory Responses in the Orbitofrontal Cortex (OFC)

Srivastava, Hemant; Bandyopadhyay, Sambaran

doi:10.1523/eneuro.0121-20.2020

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 85 publications

(113 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, only 1 repetition was enough for the initial auditory-evoked response in the mPFC to drop between >50% and >70%, and a second repetition to reach maximum suppression levels (Fig 6E, in black). Similar suppressive dynamics were reported in the orbitofrontal cortex of anesthetized and awake mice [52], in the dorsolateral PFC of alert macaques [53], as well as in human frontal sources [22].…”

Section: The Neuronal Substrate Of Mmn-like Potentials In the Rat Brainsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Hence, the fact that we have been able to record very robust mismatch responses in the rat mPFC during anesthesia further strengthens the link between our data and MMN evidence from human research. Moreover, previous studies of mismatch responses in both the auditory system and the PFC of rodents did not find dramatic differences between anesthetized and awake preparations [39,52,79,80]. Notwithstanding, the use of anesthesia is always a limiting factor that must be minded when comparing these data with those obtained from awake preparations, or when trying to extrapolate possible behavioral implications from the conclusions presented in our study.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 52%

“…This could provide a potential explanation for the lack of significant differences between mismatch responses across mPFC fields, despite been quite distinct from each other. The mismatch responses we recorded at the rat mPFC resembled to those recorded at the mouse orbitofrontal cortex [52] and the macaque dorsolateral PFC [53]. It is possible that non-auditory subcortical nuclei such as the hippocampus or the amygdala could compute PEs and then broadcast that signal all over the PFC for further processing and integration.…”

Section: Subcortical Middle Players Could Relay Pe Signals To the Pfcsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…and STD (which only differed significantly from each other in M2; [52]. Epidural electrodes placed over the frontal cortices of awake and freely-moving rats [40,45] recorded stronger ERPs to DEV than to CTR or STD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prediction error signaling explains neuronal mismatch responses in the medial prefrontal cortex

Casado-Román

Pérez-González

Malmierca

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

32According to predictive coding theory, perception emerges through the interplay of neural circuits 33 that generate top-down predictions about environmental statistical regularities and those that 34 generate bottom-up error signals to sensory deviations. Prediction error signals are hierarchically 35 organized from subcortical structures to the auditory cortex. Beyond the auditory cortex, the 36 prefrontal cortices integrate error signals to update prediction models. Here, we recorded neuronal 37 activity in the medial prefrontal cortex of the anesthetized rat while presenting oddball and control 38 stimulus sequences, designed to separate prediction errors from repetition suppression effects of 39 mismatch responses. Robust mismatch signals were mostly due to prediction errors. The encoding of 40 a regularity representation and the repetition suppression effect over the course of repeated stimuli 41 were fast. Medial prefrontal cells encode stronger prediction errors than lower levels in the auditory 42 hierarchy. These neurons may, therefore, represent the neuronal basis of a fundamental mechanism 43 of hierarchical inference. 44 45 46 Keywords: auditory processing, predictive coding, prediction error, mismatch negativity, medial 47 prefrontal cortex, anaesthesia, neuronal activity 48 49 3 50 51 100 unpredictable deviations from the auditory background. These cells may, therefore, represent the 101 neuronal basis of predictive activity in FCs. 102 103 104 Results 105Context-dependent responses across fields in mPFC. 106 To seek experimental evidence for predictive coding signals in the mPFC, we recorded neuronal 107 activity across all fields in 33 urethane-anesthetized rats. We recorded 83 multiunits (AGM [medial 108 agranular cortex]: 25; ACC [anterior cingulate cortex]: 20; PL [prelimbic cortex]: 20; IL [infralimbic 109 cortex]: 18) and tested 384 tones (AGM: 13; ACC: 90; PL: 81; IL: 81) as part of oddball paradigms 110 and suitable control sequences, namely, cascade and many-standards conditions (Fig. 1). Figure 2 111 illustrates 5 examples of electrolytic lesions in three Nissl-stained sections at different recording sites 112 across the mPFC. Regardless of their anatomical location in all mPFC fields, we found sound-driven 113 neuronal activity to pure tones (0.6-42.5 kHz; 25-70 dB SPL). We assessed significantly increased 114 responses to sound by comparing baseline-corrected spike counts after stimulus presentation against 115 a simulated null peristimulus time histograms (PSTH) with a firing rate equal to the baseline 116 (detailed in Methods). We tested the neuronal response to each pure tone as either being deviant, 117 standard, or part of a control sequence and only included those frequency tones that demonstrated a 118 significant response to any condition. Thus, 86.2% (331/384) of deviant stimuli evoked a significant 119 neuronal discharge, while 26.6% (102/384) of standard stimuli, 26.6% (102/384) of many-standards 120 stimuli and 32.3% (124/384) of cascade stimuli evoked a firing rate ...

show abstract

Section: The Neuronal Substrate Of Mmn-like Potentials In the Rat Brainsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Subcortical Middle Players Could Relay Pe Signals To the Pfcsupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prediction error signaling explains neuronal mismatch responses in the medial prefrontal cortex

Casado-Román

Pérez-González

Malmierca

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that nonauditory subcortical nuclei such as the hippocampus or the amygdala could compute PEs and then broadcast that signal all over the PFC for further processing and integration. Indeed, a very recent study has demonstrated that the emergence of robust and long-lasting mismatch responses in the mouse orbitofrontal cortex is directly controlled from the nonlemnical MGB through the basolateral amygdala [52]. Therefore, all these auditory and nonauditory subcortical nuclei could be fundamental middle players in the automatic process of deviance detection and PE signaling reflected in the MMN.…”

Section: Subcortical Middle Players Could Relay Pe Signals To the Pfcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organization of orbitofrontal‐auditory pathways in the Mongolian gerbil

Ying

Hamlette

Nikoobakht

et al. 2023

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sound perception is highly malleable, rapidly adjusting to the acoustic environment and behavioral demands. This flexibility is the result of ongoing changes in auditory cortical activity driven by fluctuations in attention, arousal, or prior expectations. Recent work suggests that the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) may mediate some of these rapid changes, but the anatomical connections between the OFC and the auditory system are not well characterized. Here, we used virally mediated fluorescent tracers to map the projection from OFC to the auditory midbrain, thalamus, and cortex in a classic animal model for auditory research, the Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus). We observed no connectivity between the OFC and the auditory midbrain, and an extremely sparse connection between the dorsolateral OFC and higher order auditory thalamic regions. In contrast, we observed a robust connection between the ventral and medial subdivisions of the OFC and the auditory cortex, with a clear bias for secondary auditory cortical regions. OFC axon terminals were found in all auditory cortical lamina but were significantly more concentrated in the infragranular layers. Tissue‐clearing and lightsheet microscopy further revealed that auditory cortical‐projecting OFC neurons send extensive axon collaterals throughout the brain, targeting both sensory and non‐sensory regions involved in learning, decision‐making, and memory. These findings provide a more detailed map of orbitofrontal‐auditory connections and shed light on the possible role of the OFC in supporting auditory cognition.

show abstract

Parallel Lemniscal and Non-Lemniscal Sources Control Auditory Responses in the Orbitofrontal Cortex (OFC)

Abstract: Parallel lemniscal and non-lemniscal sources control auditory responses in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)

Cited by 18 publications

References 85 publications

Prediction error signaling explains neuronal mismatch responses in the medial prefrontal cortex

Prediction error signaling explains neuronal mismatch responses in the medial prefrontal cortex

Untitled

Organization of orbitofrontal‐auditory pathways in the Mongolian gerbil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About