Brainstem entracking produces horizontal ‘butte’ rate-place profiles encoding pitch

Evidence

An unsolved question is how and whether this implicit temporal representation is transformed into a more explicit representation. Following an early model (Licklider 1951 ), various autocorrelation-type schemes have been proposed, in which periodicity-tuning is generated by some combination of coincidence detection and a source of delay. It is generally assumed that such a computation is implemented at a brainstem level, where responses are temporally precise over a broad range of frequencies. However, recordings have not revealed convincing evidence for level-invariant, periodicity-tuned neurons or sources of delay that cover a sufficiently broad temporal range (Neuert et al. 2005 ; Sayles et al. 2013 ; Sayles and Winter 2008a , 2008b ; Verhey and Winter 2006 ; Wang and Delgutte 2012 ). Here, simple properties of the early central auditory system are brought into focus and it is argued that the relevant representation is fundamentally different from autocorrelation-type schemes à la Licklider ( 1951 ). The key proposal is that entrained phase-locking (contracted to “entracking”) generates a scalar rate code for pitch early in the brainstem. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4494 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: No neural evidence supports autocorrelation models of pitch at the brainstem — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4494; Place theory claims pitch is encoded by basilar membrane position; Neural pitch coding produces a butte of equal-rate activity centered on the stimulus frequency (+3 more)

Related

• No neural evidence supports autocorrelation models of pitch at the brainstem (similarity 0.92)
• Pitch may be encoded by entrained phase-locking producing a rate code (similarity 0.90)
• Pitch can be coded by neuron firing rate matching the repetition frequency (similarity 0.90)
• Neural pitch coding produces a butte of equal-rate activity centered on the stimulus frequency (similarity 0.88)
• Place theory claims pitch is encoded by basilar membrane position (similarity 0.87)
• Pitch is coded by firing rate constancy, not spike phase (similarity 0.86)
• Entracking generates horizontally flattened rate profiles that encode pitch as firing rate (similarity 0.85)
• Temporal pitch coding via entracking gives way to place coding above 500 Hz (similarity 0.84)
• Entracking codes pitch through constant firing rate while spike phase stays irrelevant (similarity 0.83)
• Pitch coding shifts between place and entracking mechanisms depending on stimulus level (similarity 0.83)
• Phase invariance of pitch might arise from some neurons always entracking (similarity 0.82)
• Pitch can be coded by monotonic firing rate instead of tuned delay circuits (similarity 0.82)
• Only two classical theories, place and temporal, explain pitch tracking. (similarity 0.82)
• Envelope-peak-based pitch coding relaxes the phase-locking constraint on auditory processing (similarity 0.82)
• Pitch-period codes divide into delay-based vector codes and rate-based scalar codes (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Neural pitch coding produces a butte of equal-rate activity centered on the stimulus frequency #expands (0.90)
• No neural evidence supports autocorrelation models of pitch at the brainstem #contradicts (0.80) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4494
• Place theory claims pitch is encoded by basilar membrane position #expands (0.75)
• Just-noticeable frequency shifts map to constant basilar distances #corroborates (0.72) — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 929