Welcome to the new version of CaltechAUTHORS. Login is currently restricted to library staff. If you notice any issues, please email coda@library.caltech.edu
Published July 1999 | public
Journal Article

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

Abstract

The lateral intraparietal area (LIP) of macaques has been considered unresponsive to auditory stimulation. Recent reports, however, indicate that neurons in this area respond to auditory stimuli in the context of an auditory-saccade task. Is this difference in auditory responsiveness of LIP due to auditory-saccade training? To address this issue, LIP responses in two monkeys were recorded at two different times: before and after auditory-saccade training. Before auditory-saccade training, the animals had never been trained on any auditory task, but had been trained on visual tasks. In both sets of experiments, activity of LIP neurons was recorded while auditory and visual stimuli were presented and the animals were fixating. Before training, 172 LIP neurons were recorded. Among these, the number of cells responding to auditory stimuli did not reach significance, whereas about one-half of the cells responded to visual stimuli. An information theory analysis confirmed that no information about auditory stimulus location was available in LIP neurons in the experiments before training. After training, activity from 160 cells was recorded. These experiments showed that 12% of cells in area LIP responded to auditory stimuli, whereas the proportion of cells responding to visual stimuli remained about the same as before training. The information theory analysis confirmed that, after training, information about auditory stimulus location was available in LIP neurons. Auditory-saccade training therefore generated responsiveness to auditory stimuli de novo in LIP neurons. Thus some LIP cells become active for auditory stimuli in a passive fixation task, once the animals have learned that these stimuli are important for oculomotor behavior.

Additional Information

© 1999 The American Physiological Society. Received 14 August 1998; Accepted 17 March 1999; Published online 1 July 1999; Published in print 1 July 1999. The authors thank B. Gillikin for technical assistance, C. Reyes for administrative assistance, M. Sahani for the data acquisition software, and Drs. M. Sahani, Y. E. Cohen, and K. V. Shenoy for comments on a draft version of this manuscript. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health and by the Boswell Foundation. Support for A. Grunewald was provided by the McDonnell-Pew Program in Cognitive Neuroscience. Support for J. F. Linden was provided by a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Predoctoral Fellowship. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Additional details

Created:
August 19, 2023
Modified:
October 20, 2023