Cited by 130Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorNeuroscience and Music PerceptionHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics

Auditory Cortical Detection and Discrimination Correlates with Communicative Significance

Open access
Liu, Robert C, Schreiner, Christoph E·2007·PLoS Biology

Abstract

Plasticity studies suggest that behavioral relevance can change the cortical processing of trained or conditioned sensory stimuli. However, whether this occurs in the context of natural communication, where stimulus significance is acquired through social interaction, has not been well investigated, perhaps because neural responses to species-specific vocalizations can be difficult to interpret within a systematic framework. The ultrasonic communication system between isolated mouse pups and adult females that either do or do not recognize the calls' significance provides an opportunity to explore this issue. We applied an information-based analysis to multi- and single unit data collected from anesthetized mothers and pup-naïve females to quantify how the communicative significance of pup calls affects their encoding in the auditory cortex. The timing and magnitude of information that cortical responses convey (at a 2-ms resolution) for pup call detection and discrimination was significantly improved in mothers compared to naïve females, most likely because of changes in call frequency encoding. This was not the case for a non-natural sound ensemble outside the mouse vocalization repertoire. The results demonstrate that a sensory cortical change in the timing code for communication sounds is correlated with the vocalizations' behavioral relevance, potentially enhancing functional processing by improving its signal to noise ratio.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050173

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pup calls evoke more robust cortical responses in experienced maternal mice compared to inexperienced or naïve virgins.

    “Pup calls evoke more robust cortical responses in experienced maternal mice compared to inexperienced or naïve virgins”

    From Oxytocin, Neural Plasticity, and Social Behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Liu & Schreiner 2007

  • Changes in auditory cortex which might enhance the detection of infant vocalizations persist up to several weeks after weaning.

    “changes in auditory cortex which might enhance the detection of infant vocalizations have been shown to persist up to several weeks after weaning”

    From Neuromodulation of maternal circuits by oxytocin (2019) · cites this paper as Liu and Schreiner, 2007

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, R. C., & Schreiner, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Liu, Robert C
Venue
PLoS Biology
Published
2007-06-12
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
e173
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W2084250402
Cited by
130
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9876754)
  • Emory University
  • National Institutes of Health (IBN-9876754, NS34835)
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH077970, MH 077970)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC08343, DC-02260, F32DC005279, R01DC002260, F32 DC05279, R01DC008343)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 34835, P01NS034835)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Keywords
auditory cortex, pup calls, ultrasonic communication, maternal recognition, call detection, call discrimination, sensory plasticity, behavioral relevance, signal-to-noise ratio, mouse vocalizations, single-unit recording, multi-unit recording
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Animals, Animal Communication, Animals, Newborn, Auditory Cortex, Auditory Perception, Discrimination, Psychological, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Maternal Behavior, Mice, Inbred CBA, Pregnancy, Psychoacoustics, Ultrasonics, Vocalization, Animal, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review