Auditory cortical responses to abrupt lateralization shifts do not reflect the activity of hemifield-specific units involved in opponent coding of auditory space

dc.contributor.authorIlhan, Barkin
dc.contributor.authorKurt, Saliha
dc.contributor.authorUngan, Pekcan
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T14:13:20Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T14:13:20Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractRecent studies show that the classical model based on axonal delay-lines may not explain interaural time dif-ference (ITD) based spatial coding in humans. Instead, a population-code model called opponent channels model (OCM) has been suggested. This model comprises two competing channels respectively for the two auditory hemifields, each with a sigmoidal tuning curve. Event-related potentials (ERPs) to ITD-changes are used in some studies to test the predictions of this model by considering the sounds before and after the change as adaptor and probe stimuli, respectively. It is assumed in these studies that the former stimulus causes adaptation of the neurons selective to its side, and that the ERP N1-P2 response to the ITD-change is the specific response of the neurons with selectivity to the side of probe sound. However, these ERP components are known as a global, non-specific acoustic change complex of cortical origin evoked by any change in the auditory environment. It probably does not genuinely reflect the activity of some stimulus-specific neuronal units that have escaped the refractory effect of the preceding adaptor, which means a violation of the crucial assumption in an adaptor-probe paradigm. To assess this viewpoint, we conducted two experiments. In the first one, we recorded ERPs to abrupt lateralization shifts of click trains having various pre-and post-shift ITDs within the physiological range of -600 & mu;s to + 600 & mu;s. Magnitudes of the ERP components P1, N1, and P2 to these ITD-shifts did not comply with the additive behavior of partial probe responses presumed for an adaptor-probe paradigm, casting doubt on the accuracy of testing sensory coding models by using ERPs to abrupt lateralization changes. Findings of the second experiment, involving ERPs to conjoint outwards/transverse shift stimuli also supported this conclusion.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108629
dc.identifier.issn0028-3932
dc.identifier.issn1873-3514
dc.identifier.pmid37356539en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85163175781en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108629
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/12392
dc.identifier.volume188en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001035098100001en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPergamon-Elsevier Science Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofNeuropsychologiaen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectSound Lateralizationen_US
dc.subjectAuditory Spatial Codingen_US
dc.subjectInteraural Time Differenceen_US
dc.subjectAuditory Evoked Potentialen_US
dc.subjectChange Responseen_US
dc.subjectAdaptationen_US
dc.titleAuditory cortical responses to abrupt lateralization shifts do not reflect the activity of hemifield-specific units involved in opponent coding of auditory spaceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar