1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Complementary control of sensory adaptation by two types of cortical interneurons

Research Article
  • Cited 51
  • Views 3,864
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e09868 doi: 10.7554/eLife.09868

Abstract

Reliably detecting unexpected sounds is important for environmental awareness and survival. By selectively reducing responses to frequently, but not rarely, occurring sounds, auditory cortical neurons are thought to enhance the brain's ability to detect unexpected events through stimulus-specific adaptation (SSA). The majority of neurons in the primary auditory cortex exhibit SSA, yet little is known about the underlying cortical circuits. We found that two types of cortical interneurons differentially amplify SSA in putative excitatory neurons. Parvalbumin-positive interneurons (PVs) amplify SSA by providing non-specific inhibition: optogenetic suppression of PVs led to an equal increase in responses to frequent and rare tones. In contrast, somatostatin-positive interneurons (SOMs) selectively reduce excitatory responses to frequent tones: suppression of SOMs led to an increase in responses to frequent, but not to rare tones. A mutually coupled excitatory-inhibitory network model accounts for distinct mechanisms by which cortical inhibitory neurons enhance the brain's sensitivity to unexpected sounds.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ryan Gregory Natan

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. John J Briguglio

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Laetitia Mwilambwe-Tshilobo

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Sara Jones

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Mark Aizenberg

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ethan M Goldberg

    Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Maria Neimark Geffen

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    mgeffen@med.upenn.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures are in accordance with NIH guidelines and approved by the IACUC at University of Pennsylvania (protocol number 803266).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Andrew J King, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: July 5, 2015
  2. Accepted: October 1, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 13, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: October 16, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: November 11, 2015 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Natan et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,864
    Page views
  • 957
    Downloads
  • 51
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)