Responses to Auditory Stimuli in Macaque Lateral Intraparietal Area I. Effects of Training

Grunewald, Alexander; Linden, JF; Andersen, Richard A.

doi:10.1152/jn.1999.82.1.330

Cited by 116 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with the idea that neural networks of the posterior association cortices specialize in particular modalities or aspects of sensory information (Fuster 2001;Fuster 2004). The activity of cells in the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was shown to be correlated with working memory (Koch and Fuster, 1989;Quintana and Fuster, 1993;Iriki et al, 1996;Grunewald et al, 1999;Linden et al, 1999;Burton and Sinclair, 2000;Snyder et al, 2000;Andersen and Buneo, 2002;Pesaran et al, 2002;Constantinidis and Procyk, 2004). PPC was also shown in human imaging studies to be involved in crossmodal transfer of information between the tactile and visual representations (Hadjikhani and Roland, 1998;Saito et al, 2003).…”

Section: Erp Componentssupporting

confidence: 78%

Neural activities of tactile cross-modal working memory in humans: an event-related potential study

Ohara

Wang

et al. 2008

Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, we examined the neural mechanisms underlying crossmodal working memory by analyzing scalp-recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) from normal human subjects performing tactile-tactile unimodal or tactile-auditory crossmodal delay tasks that consisted of stimulus-1 (S-1, tactile), interval (delay), and stimulus-2 (S-2, tactile or auditory). We hypothesized that there are sequentially discrete task-correlated changes in ERPs representing neural processes of tactile working memory, and in addition, significant differences would be observed in ERPs between the unimodal task and the crossmodal task.In comparison to the ERP components in the unimodal task, two late positive ERP components (LPC-1 and LPC-2) evoked by the tactile S-1 in the delay of the crossmodal task were enhanced by expectation of the associated auditory S-2 presented at the end of the delay. Such enhancement might represent neural activities involved in crossmodal association between the tactile stimulus and the auditory stimulus. Later in the delay, a late negative component (LNC) was observed. The amplitude of LNC depended on information retained during the delay, and when the same information was retained, this amplitude was not influenced by modality or location of S-2 (auditory S-2 through headphones, or tactile S-2 on the left index finger). LNC might represent the neural activity involved in working memory. The above results suggest that the sequential ERP changes in the present study represent temporally distinguishable neural processes, such as the crossmodal association and crossmodal working memory.

show abstract

Section: Erp Componentssupporting

confidence: 78%

Neural activities of tactile cross-modal working memory in humans: an event-related potential study

Ohara

Wang

et al. 2008

Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is impossible to compare our results with those of Grunewald et al (1999) because they showed little behavioral data. Nevertheless, they reported that after extensive training, which included specific visual feedback, their monkeys could perform a localization task that included only two targets located at (Ϯ16°, 8°) with acceptance windows 32°in diameter.…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…However, it is presently unclear whether the species can actually localize sound sources. For instance, Grunewald et al (1999) reported that monkeys could not make saccadic eye movements to the sources of sounds in the context of a simple saccade task. In a companion study performed in the same monkeys used by Grunewald et al (1999), Linden et al (1999) only presented acoustic targets from two locations, one on each side of the midline, an experimental task that hardly required sound localization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Grunewald et al (1999) reported that monkeys could not make saccadic eye movements to the sources of sounds in the context of a simple saccade task. In a companion study performed in the same monkeys used by Grunewald et al (1999), Linden et al (1999) only presented acoustic targets from two locations, one on each side of the midline, an experimental task that hardly required sound localization. The view that the ability of nonhuman primates to orient to sound sources might be poor is reinforced by the paradigms used in various studies of audiovisual integration in which acoustic stimuli were used as distractors (or attractors), but not as targets for saccadic eye movements (Frens and Van Opstal, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monkey Sound Localization: Head-Restrained versus Head-Unrestrained Orienting

Populin¹

2006

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sound localization abilities of three rhesus monkeys were tested under head-restrained and head-unrestrained conditions. Operant conditioning and the magnetic search coil technique were used to measure eye and head movements to sound sources. Whereas the results support previous findings that monkeys localize sounds very poorly with their heads restrained, the data also reveal for the first time that monkeys localize sounds much more accurately and with less variability when their heads are allowed to move. Control experiments using acoustic stimuli known to produce spatial auditory illusions such as summing localization confirmed that the monkeys based their orienting on localizing the sound sources and not on remembering spatial locations that resulted in rewards. Overall, the importance of using ecologically valid behaviors for studies of sensory processes is confirmed, and the potential of the rhesus monkey, the model closest to human, for studies of spatial auditory function, is established.

show abstract

“…In comparison, the amount of research about audition using this approach is scant (5). Most of the studies in the auditory cortex and related areas have described the response properties of neurons to auditory scenes in anesthetized and awake animals, and how these are affected by different task conditions (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21). But how the neural representations of acoustic stimuli are related to perception, memory and decision making is not known.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural codes for perceptual discrimination of acoustic flutter in the primate auditory cortex

Lemus

Hernandez

Romo

2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We recorded from single neurons of the primary auditory cortex (A1), while trained monkeys reported a decision based on the comparison of 2 acoustic flutter stimuli. Crucially, to form the decision, monkeys had to compare the second stimulus rate to the memory trace of the first stimulus rate. We found that the responses of A1 neurons encode stimulus rates both through their periodicity and through their firing rates during the stimulation periods, but not during the working memory and decision components of this task. Neurometric thresholds based on firing rate were very similar to the monkey's discrimination thresholds, whereas neurometric thresholds based on periodicity were lower than the experimental thresholds. Thus, an observer could solve this task with a precision similar to that of the monkey based only on the firing rates evoked by the stimuli. These results suggest that the A1 is exclusively associated with the sensory and not with the cognitive components of this task.decision making ͉ monkeys ͉ working memory ͉ psychophysics ͉ neurophysiology T he problem of how sensory experiences arise from activity in the brain has stimulated a large amount of research in neuroscience (1, 2). A major component of this problem involves understanding how the brain represents sensory features-that is, what attributes of the neural responses evoked by a stimulus are meaningful for sensation, perception, memory, and decisionmaking? To confront these issues unambiguously, experimental methods should conform to 2 essential conditions: first, the sensory stimulus must be under precise, quantitative control, and second, the subject's psychophysical responses should be well controlled and quantitatively measured. Most experimental paradigms meeting these standards have involved vision (1, 3) and somatosensation (2, 4). In comparison, the amount of research about audition using this approach is scant (5). Most of the studies in the auditory cortex and related areas have described the response properties of neurons to auditory scenes in anesthetized and awake animals, and how these are affected by different task conditions (5-21). But how the neural representations of acoustic stimuli are related to perception, memory and decision making is not known.We addressed this problem by recording the activity of single neurons in the primary auditory cortex (A1), while trained monkeys discriminated the difference in rate of 2 acoustic flutter stimuli (range of 4-40 Hz). The sensation of acoustic flutter is produced by slow repetition of an acoustic stimulus (11). The rate of the acoustic flutter is determined by the interval between the acoustic stimuli (pulse trains). In the acoustic flutter discrimination task, monkeys report whether the second stimulus rate (f2) is higher or lower than the first stimulus rate (f1). This cognitive operation requires that subjects compare information of f2 with a stored trace of f1 to form a decision, that is, whether f2 Ͼ f1 or f2 Ͻ f1, and to report their perceptual evaluation after a short, fix...

show abstract

Responses to Auditory Stimuli in Macaque Lateral Intraparietal Area I. Effects of Training

Cited by 116 publications

References 47 publications

Neural activities of tactile cross-modal working memory in humans: an event-related potential study

Neural activities of tactile cross-modal working memory in humans: an event-related potential study

Monkey Sound Localization: Head-Restrained versus Head-Unrestrained Orienting

Neural codes for perceptual discrimination of acoustic flutter in the primate auditory cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About