• No results found

In this dissertation, we described several distinct experiments that explore how

neuronal activity the primary auditory cortex adapts to variations in sound stimulus

contexts. In Chapter 2, we tested how stimulus temporal correlation modulates the

input-response profile of neurons in the primary auditory cortex, and our linear non-

linear modeling revealed that they adaptively compensate for this particular stimulus

feature through gain-control. In Chapter 3, we used optogenetic methods to test how

interneuron populations in the primary auditory cortex modulate responses to standard

versus deviant tones, showing that inhibition from SOMs suppresses responses

specifically to repeated tones while inhibition from PVs simply amplifies the differences

in response magnitude. Further we found that SOMs and PVs themselves exhibit

adaptation at similar levels as local pyramidal neurons. These results were incorporated

into a rate model of cortical dynamics, which found that SOM interneurons play a

special role in SSA. In Chapter 4, we again used optogenetic methods to more closely

examine how PVs and SOMs modulate responses before and after adaptation across

frequency tuning curves. We found that inhibition from SOMs increased, modulating

frequency tuning in a gain-like manner, as adaptation developed and was also

correlated with the magnitude of adaptation. By contrast, inhibition from PVs was

results deliver insights to the extent, mechanisms and functions of cortical sensory

adaptation.

Though the approaches are quite different, these studies share a common goal

of exploring how the auditory cortex adapts to persistent temporal regularities in sound

stimuli. Natural sounds contain a mix of spectrally and temporally correlated features

with parametrically constrained statistical variations. In order to inform how the

auditory cortex encodes natural sounds, we chose to focus separately on temporal

aspects of stimulus dynamics rather than spectro-temporal correlations that could

confound interpretation of the results. In Chapter 2, our custom designed dynamic

random cord stimuli exhibited a range in temporal correlation independent from

variation in spectral modulation. In Chapters 3 and 4, oddball sequences and single

frequency tone trains explore regularity across narrow frequency bands. The adaptive

phenomena tested in each experiment may operate at overlapping or different

timescales. Accordingly, we tested temporal amplitude modulations ranging from 200

Hz to 12.5 Hz among the dynamic random cord stimuli and only 2.5 Hz for tone trains.

We found that the time constant of adaptation ranged widely across neurons from 100

ms up to 7 s for changes in temporal correlation, and similarly from 100 ms to greater

than 3 seconds for tone train stimuli. We found that across these difference dynamic

ranges, adaptation plays an important role in controlling cortical responses. Future

studies can address the downstream mechanisms for inferring temporal dynamics in the

Our findings indicate that PVs and SOMs may both play a role in adaptation to

broadband stimuli; PVs by non-selectively amplifying stimulus-response differences and

SOMs by inducing gain-like adaptation across the spectrum. Interestingly, the

interneurons themselves may operate on different time scales of adaptation. Through

direct thalamocortical input to PVs, inhibitory feedforward circuit dynamics could

mediate adaptive responses more quickly. For instance, PVs have been shown to

modulate the stimulus integration time window by around 10 ms (Gabernet et al.,

2005), and could produce fast acting adaptation within very short time scales. Feedback

and top-down circuits, which SOMs may participate in, would generate an adaptive

signal more slowly. In Chapter 3, the tone-by-tone increase in SOM mediated inhibition

indicates that SOMs may operate on longer timescales. Perhaps the difference in

adaptation time scales among pyramidal neurons is due to differential weighting of PV

and SOM mediated inhibitory input. These findings may help to constrain future models

and understanding of temporally dynamic aspects of auditory cortical responses to

natural sounds.

Our findings likely generalize to other sensory modalities and cortical areas.

Beyond auditory cortex, studies have described adaptation to stimulus contrast in visual

(Lesica et al., 2007) and olfactory cortex (Kadohisa and Wilson, 2006). Our experiments

showed that gain-control underlying contrast adaptation similarly underlies adaptation

to temporal correlation. By extension, cortical receptive fields in vision,

somatosensation and olfaction may also exhibit sensitivity to temporal correlations in

variations over their receptive fields. Though there are variations, interneurons in

primary sensory cortices largely share common circuit architecture (Douglas and Martin,

2004). Thus, the roles of PV and SOM inhibition in adaptation is likely analogous across

modalities, even if the statistics of temporal modulations in natural auditory scenes

differs from those of natural stimuli in other modalities. In fact, a recent study confirms

that SOMs modulate cortical responses to standard and deviant visual stimuli

differentially (Hamm and Yuste, 2016). Thus, we expect that our experimental findings

uncover general principles and mechanisms of cortical sensory adaptation.

The adaptive properties we describe may also underlie complex adaptive

phenomena beyond temporal context sensitivity in sensory cortex. Divisive

normalization, considered a canonical cortical computation, describes a spatial context-

specific adaptation (Carandini and Heeger, 2011); a sensory neuron’s spiking response

to stimuli falling within a central excitatory receptive field are normalized by the mean

intensity of the stimuli falling within a broader suppressive surround subfield.

Importantly, the center and surround subfields exhibit independent sensitivity to the

temporal regularities of the stimulus (Durand et al., 2007). The sensitivity to temporal

correlations described in Chapter 2 may constrain models of divisive normalization in

this process; a receptive field’s smaller excitatory and larger suppressive subfields likely

each integrate rapid stimulus variation over proportional timescales. Thus it would be

interesting to test how gain-control acts independently between these subfield, and

controls their combined output. Such computation structure adds a spatial component

Related documents