Maps of ITD in the Nucleus Laminaris of the Barn Owl

  • Catherine Carr
  • Sahil Shah
  • Go Ashida
  • Thomas McColgan
  • Hermann Wagner
  • Paula T. Kuokkanen
  • Richard Kempter
  • Christine Köppl
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (volume 787)

Abstract

Axons from the nucleus magnocellularis (NM) and their targets in nucleus laminaris (NL) form the circuit responsible for encoding interaural time differences (ITDs). In barn owls, NL receives bilateral inputs from NM such that axons from the ipsilateral NM enter NL dorsally, while contralateral axons enter from the ventral side. These afferents and their synapses on NL neurons generate a tone-induced local field potential, or neurophonic, that varies systematically with position in NL. From dorsal to ventral within the nucleus, the best interaural time difference (ITD) of the neurophonic shifts from contralateral space to best ITDs around 0 µs. Earlier recordings suggested that in NL, iso-delay contours ran parallel to the dorsal and ventral borders of NL (Sullivan WE, Konishi M. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 83:8400–8404, 1986). This axis is orthogonal to that seen in chicken NL, where a single map of ITD runs from around 0 µs ITD medially to contralateral space laterally (Köppl C, Carr CE. Biol Cyber 98:541–559, 2008). Yet the trajectories of the NM axons are similar in owl and chicken (Seidl AH, Rubel EW, Harris DM, J Neurosci 30:70–80, 2010). We therefore used clicks to measure conduction time in NL and made lesions to mark the 0 µs iso-delay contour in multiple penetrations along an isofrequency slab. Iso-delay contours were not parallel to the dorsal and ventral borders of NL; instead the 0 µs iso-delay contour shifted systematically from a dorsal position in medial NL to a ventral position in lateral NL. Could different conduction delays account for the mediolateral shift in the representation of 0 µs ITD? We measured conduction delays using the neurophonic potential and developed a simple linear model of the delay-line conduction velocity. We then raised young owls with time-delaying earplugs in one ear (Gold JI, Knudsen EI, J Neurophysiol 82:2197–2209, 1999) to examine map plasticity.

References

  1. Beckius GE, Batra R, Oliver DL (1999) Axons from anteroventral cochlear nucleus that terminate in medial superior olive of cat: observations related to delay lines. J Neurosci 19:3146–3161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carr CE, Boudreau RE (1993) Organization of the nucleus magnocellularis and the nucleus laminaris in the barn owl: encoding and measuring interaural time differences. J Comp Neurol 334:337–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr CE, Konishi M (1990) A circuit for detection of interaural time differences in the brain stem of the barn owl. J Neurosci 10:3227–3246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng S-M, Carr CE (2007) Functional delay of myelination of auditory delay lines in the nucleus laminaris of the barn owl. Dev Neurobiol 67:1957–1974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gold JI, Knudsen EI (1999) Hearing impairment induces frequency-specific adjustments in auditory spatial tuning in the optic tectum of young owls. J Neurophysiol 82:2197–2209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Köppl C, Carr CE (2008) Maps of interaural time difference in the chicken’s brainstem nucleus laminaris. Biol Cyber 98:541–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Köppl C, Futterer E, Nieder B, Sistermann R, Wagner H (2005) Embryonic and posthatching development of the barn owl (Tyto alba): reference data for age determination. Dev Dyn 233:1248–1260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kuokkanen PT, Wagner H, Ashida G, Carr CE, Kempter R (2010) On the origin of the extracellular field potential in the nucleus laminaris of the barn owl (Tyto alba). J Neurophysiol 104:2274–2290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mc Laughlin M, Verschooten E, Joris PX (2010) Oscillatory dipoles as a source of phase shifts in field potentials in the mammalian auditory brainstem. J Neurosci 30:13472–13487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parks TN, Rubel EW (1975) Organization and development of brain stem auditory nuclei of the chicken: organization of projections from n. magnocellularis to n. laminaris. J Comp Neurol 164:435–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Peña JL, Viete S, Funabiki K, Saberi K, Konishi M (2001) Cochlear and neural delays for coincidence detection in owls. J Neurosci 21:9455–9459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Schwarz DW (1992) Can central neurons reproduce sound waveforms? An analysis of the neurophonic potential in the laminar nucleus of the chicken. J Otolaryngol 21:30–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Seidl AH, Rubel EW, Harris DM (2010) Mechanisms for adjusting interaural time differences to achieve binaural coincidence detection. J Neurosci 30:70–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith PH, Joris PX, Yin TCT (1993) Projections of physiologically characterized spherical bushy cell axons from the cochlear nucleus of the cat: evidence for delay lines to the medial superior olive. J Comp Neurol 331:245–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sullivan WE, Konishi M (1986) Neural map of interaural phase difference in the owl’s brainstem. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 83:8400–8404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. von Campenhausen M, Wagner H (2006) Influence of the facial ruff on the sound-receiving characteristics of the barn owl’s ears. J Comp Psychol 192:1073–1082Google Scholar
  17. Wagner H, Brill S, Kempter R, Carr CE (2005) Microsecond precision of phase delay in the auditory system of the barn owl. J Neurophysiol 94:1655–1658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wagner H, Brill S, Kempter R, Carr CE (2009) Auditory responses in the barn owl’s nucleus laminaris to clicks: impulse response and signal analysis of neurophonic potential. J Neurophysiol 102:1227–1240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Young S, Rubel EW (1983) Frequency-specific projections of individual neurons in chick brainstem auditory nuclei. J Neurosci 3:1373–1378PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Carr
    • 1
  • Sahil Shah
    • 1
  • Go Ashida
    • 1
  • Thomas McColgan
    • 2
  • Hermann Wagner
    • 2
  • Paula T. Kuokkanen
    • 3
  • Richard Kempter
    • 3
  • Christine Köppl
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Biology II, RWTH AachenAachenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Biology, Institute for Theoretical BiologyHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Biology and Environmental Sciences, and Research Center Neurosensory ScienceCarl von Ossietzky UniversityOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations