Coincidence detection latencies are set by Hebbian learning then fine-tuned modulo the cycle.
Evidence
Coincidence requires microsecond precision, which may be achieved by a two-step process, where latencies from each ear are matched during development, and then precisely matched modulo 2π. This was first proposed by Gerstner et al. ( 1996 ), who postulated that the necessary degree of coherence in the signal arrival times could be attained during development by an unsupervised Hebbian learning rule that selects connections with matching delays from a broad distribution of axons with random delays. Our data support this matching hypothesis, with coarse delays laid down through normal development, and precise, i.e. ±20 μs modulo 2π, delays regulated by some as yet unknown activity dependent processes (Seidl et al. 2010 ). — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2866
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- XREF: The two-step matching (coarse developmental, then precise modulo 2π) parallels similar coarse-then-fine calibration strategies seen in other sensory map literature.
- QUESTION: What are the ‘as yet unknown activity dependent processes’ (Seidl et al. 2010) that regulate the ±20 μs delays? Worth chasing for the neural mechanism.
Related
- Neural delay matching proceeds by coarse developmental matching followed by precise activity-dependent refinement (similarity 0.93)
- Binaural coincidence precision emerges through Hebbian-tuned coarse then fine delay matching (similarity 0.91)
- Microsecond ITD precision arises from phase-delay matching, not absolute latency (similarity 0.81)
- Barn owl ITD maps depend on phase matching rather than absolute conduction latency (similarity 0.79)
- The periodic ringing of cochlear inputs sustains phase-based ITD coding for nonperiodic sounds (similarity 0.78)