nips nips2007 nips2007-150 nips2007-150-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Brian J. Fischer
Abstract: Sound localization by barn owls is commonly modeled as a matching procedure where localization cues derived from auditory inputs are compared to stored templates. While the matching models can explain properties of neural responses, no model explains how the owl resolves spatial ambiguity in the localization cues to produce accurate localization for sources near the center of gaze. Here, I examine two models for the barn owl’s sound localization behavior. First, I consider a maximum likelihood estimator in order to further evaluate the cue matching model. Second, I consider a maximum a posteriori estimator to test whether a Bayesian model with a prior that emphasizes directions near the center of gaze can reproduce the owl’s localization behavior. I show that the maximum likelihood estimator can not reproduce the owl’s behavior, while the maximum a posteriori estimator is able to match the behavior. This result suggests that the standard cue matching model will not be sufficient to explain sound localization behavior in the barn owl. The Bayesian model provides a new framework for analyzing sound localization in the barn owl and leads to predictions about the owl’s localization behavior.
[1] E.I. Knudsen, G.G. Blasdel, and M. Konishi. Sound localization by the barn owl (Tyto alba) measured with the search coil technique. J. Comp. Physiol., 133:1–11, 1979.
[2] M. Konishi. Coding of auditory space. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 26:31–55, 2003.
[3] M.S. Brainard, E.I. Knudsen, and S.D. Esterly. Neural derivation of sound source location: Resolution of spatial ambiguities in binaural cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 91(2):1015–1027, 1992.
[4] B.J. Arthur. Neural computations leading to space-specific auditory responses in the barn owl. Ph.D. thesis, Caltech, 2001.
[5] B.J. Fischer. A model of the computations leading to a representation of auditory space in the midbrain of the barn owl. D.Sc. thesis, Washington University in St. Louis, 2005.
[6] C.H. Keller and T.T. Takahashi. Localization and identification of concurrent sounds in the owl’s auditory space map. J. Neurosci., 25:10446–10461, 2005.
[7] I. Poganiatz and H. Wagner. Sound-localization experiments with barn owls in virtual space: influence of broadband interaural level difference on head-turning behavior. J. Comp. Physiol. A, 187:225–233, 2001.
[8] D.R. Euston and T.T. Takahashi. From spectrum to space: The contribution of level difference cues to spatial receptive fields in the barn owl inferior colliculus. J. Neurosci., 22(1):284–293, Jan. 2002.
[9] Evans M., Hastings N., and Peacock B. von Mises Distribution. In Statistical Distributions, 3rd ed., pages 189–191. Wiley, New York, 2000.
[10] C.H. Keller, K. Hartung, and T.T. Takahashi. Head-related transfer functions of the barn owl: measurement and neural responses. Hearing Research, 118:13–34, 1998.
[11] R.O. Duda. Elevation dependence of the interaural transfer function, chapter 3 in Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments, pages 49–75. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.
[12] Witten I.B. and Knudsen E.I. Why seeing is believing: Merging auditory and visual worlds. Neuron, 48:489–496, 2005.
[13] J.F Olsen, E.I. Knudsen, and S.D. Esterly. Neural maps of interaural time and intensity differences in the optic tectum of the barn owl. J. Neurosci., 9:2591–2605, 1989.
[14] R.M. Stern and H.S. Colburn. Theory of binaural interaction based on auditory-nerve data. IV. A model for subjective lateral position. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 64:127–140, 1978.
[15] H. Wagner. Sound-localization deficits induced by lesions in the barn owl’s auditory space map. J. Neurosci., 13:371–386, 1993.
[16] I. Poganiatz, I. Nelken, and H. Wagner. Sound-localization experiments with barn owls in virtual space: influence of interaural time difference on head-turning behavior. J. Ass. Res. Otolarnyg., 2:1–21, 2001.
[17] T. Takahashi and M. Konishi. Selectivity for interaural time difference in the owl’s midbrain. J. Neurosci., 6(12):3413–3422, 1986.
[18] J.A. Mazer. How the owl resolves auditory coding ambiguity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95:10932– 10937, 1998.
[19] K. Saberi, Y. Takahashi, H. Farahbod, and M. Konishi. Neural bases of an auditory illusion and its elimination in owls. Nature Neurosci., 2(7):656–659, 1999.
[20] E.I. Knudsen and M. Konishi. Mechanisms of sound localization in the barn owl (Tyto alba) measured with the search coil technique. J. Comp. Phys. A, (133):13–21, 1979.
[21] Liam Paninski. Nonparametric inference of prior probabilities from Bayes-optimal behavior. In Y. Weiss, B. Sch¨ lkopf, and J. Platt, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18, pages 1067– o 1074. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006.
[22] Stocker A.A. and Simoncelli E.P. Noise characteristics and prior expectations in human visual speed perception. Nature Neurosci., 9(4):578–585, 2006.
[23] E.I. Knudsen and M. Konishi. A neural map of auditory space in the owl. Science, 200:795–797, 1978. 8