Cited by 56Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsVestibular and auditory disordersNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Excitability of type II cochlear afferents

Open access
Weisz, Catherine J. C., Glowatzki, Elisabeth, Fuchs, Paul Albert·2014·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Two types of sensory hair cells in the mammalian cochlea signal through anatomically distinct populations of spiral ganglion afferent neurons. The solitary inner hair cell ribbon synapse uses multivesicular release to trigger action potentials that encode acoustic timing, intensity, and frequency in each type I afferent. In contrast, cochlear outer hair cells (OHCs) have a far weaker effect on their postsynaptic targets, the type II spiral ganglion afferents. OHCs typically release single vesicles with low probability so that extensive summation is required to reach the relatively high action potential initiation threshold. These stark differences in synaptic transfer call into question whether type II neurons contribute to the cognitive perception of sound. Given the sparse and weak synaptic inputs from OHCs, the electrical properties of type II afferents are crucial in determining whether synaptic responses can sum to evoke an action potential to convey information to the cochlear nucleus. In the present work, dual-electrode recordings determined that type II afferents of rats have length constants that exceed the length of the distal, spiral process, enabling spatial summation from widespread OHCs. Focal application of tetrodotoxin localized the spike initiation zone to the type II proximal, radial process, near the spiral ganglion, in agreement with the high voltage threshold measured in the spiral process. These measured membrane properties were incorporated into a compartmental model of the type II neuron to demonstrate that neurotransmitter release from at least six OHCs is required to trigger an action potential in a type II neuron.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.3428-13.2014

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • Intracellular tight-seal recordings from type II afferents in cochlear explants revealed that glutamatergic transmission from one OHC was orders of magnitude weaker than that provided by each IHC to type I afferent ribbon synapse.

    “Intracellular tight-seal recordings from type II afferents in cochlear explants revealed that glutamatergic transmission from one OHC was orders of magnitude weaker than that provided by each IHC to type I afferent ribbon synapse (4, 33, 34).”

    From Damage-evoked signals in cochlear neurons and supporting cells (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Discussion says OHC inputs to type II afferents are less frequent and weaker than IHC inputs to type I afferents, and Materials and Methods describes tight-seal recordings from type II dendrites. The paper does not quantify the difference as orders of magnitude or report a direct recording comparison with individual IHC ribbon synapses. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Young ED (2010) Level and spectrum. In: Oxford handbook of auditory science, vol. 2: the auditory brain, Section 2: Information coding in the auditory brain: sound identification (Palmer A, Rees A, eds.), pp 93-124. London: Oxford UP.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weisz, C. J. C., Glowatzki, E., & Fuchs, P. A.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2014-02-05
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
2365-2373
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2083295625
Cited by
56
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (005211, R01DC011741, DC000023, F31DC010948, P30DC005211, T32DC000023)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
outer hair cells, action potential generation, length constant, spatial summation, tetrodotoxin, compartmental neuron model, synaptic transmission, cochlear nucleus, auditory nerve
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Newborn, Cochlea, Female, Male, Neurons, Afferent, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Excitatory Postsynaptic Potentials, Rats

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