<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Differences in temporal processing speeds between the right and left auditory cortex reflect the strength of recurrent synaptic connectivity</title>
        <author>Neophytou</author>
        <author>Arribas</author>
        <author>Arora</author>
        <author>Levy</author>
        <author>Park</author>
        <author>Oviedo</author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <p>Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the
           staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in
           standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.</p>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <title>Differences in temporal processing speeds between the right and left auditory cortex reflect the strength of recurrent synaptic connectivity</title>
          <date>2022</date>
          <publisher>PLOS Biology</publisher>
          <idno type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pbio.3001803</idno>
          
          <idno type="record">Neophytou2022-differences-in-temporal-processing-speeds-be</idno>
          <note type="staged-file">Neophytou2022-differences-in-temporal-processing-speeds-be.txt, the project's staged copy</note>
          <note type="text-sha1">0f0a21b55fd779c645b6e894851c371675bbbbd4</note>
          <note type="rights">not-redistributable</note>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <textClass><keywords><term>neuroscience</term></keywords></textClass>
      <particDesc>
        <person xml:id="paper"><p>the paper's own words</p></person>
        <person xml:id="tagger"><p>the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the
          paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation</p></person>
      </particDesc>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change when="2026-10-06"
              who="build_paper_edition.py">180 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them</change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <standOff>
    <spanGrp type="tags">
      <span xml:id="t0" from="#a3" to="#a4" type="object_of_study" ana="#object_of_study" resp="#paper">whether the left and right auditory cortex differ in how long they integrate sound, and whether that difference follows from a difference in recurrent excitatory wiring</span>
      <span xml:id="t1" from="#a11" to="#a12" type="research_question" ana="#research_question" resp="#paper">what neural mechanism produces the known asymmetry in temporal integration between the hemispheres</span>
      <span xml:id="t2" from="#a3" to="#a4" type="contribution" ana="#contribution" resp="#paper">recurrent excitatory connections are stronger in the superficial layers of the right auditory cortex, and the network time constant measured there in awake mice is about 50 percent longer, linking a wiring difference to a timescale difference in the same animal</span>
      <span xml:id="t3" from="#a111" to="#a112" type="claim_type" ana="#claim_type" resp="#paper">mechanism</span>
      <span xml:id="t4" from="#a1" to="#a2" type="phenomenon" ana="#phenomenon" resp="#paper">hemispheric lateralization of temporal integration in auditory cortex</span>
      <span xml:id="t5" from="#a78" to="#a79" type="method" ana="#method" resp="#paper">electrophysiology<term>electrophysiology</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t6" from="#a14" to="#a15" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[0]" resp="#tagger">mechanisms<term>stronger excitatory recurrent connections create positive feedback that offsets the exponential decay of individual neurons, so population activity decays more slowly and the network time constant lengthens</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t7" from="#a111" to="#a112" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[1]" resp="#tagger">mechanisms<term>hemispheric differences in superficial-layer recurrent connectivity are converted into different temporal integration windows in the two auditory cortices</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t8" from="#a137" to="#a139" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[2]" resp="#tagger">mechanisms<term>the two integration windows let the hemispheres analyse the same acoustic signal simultaneously at segmental and suprasegmental timescales, extracting different cues from it</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t9" from="#a76" to="#a77" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">excitatory feedback subtracts from the decay rate of the population, so the effective time constant grows with the strength of the recurrence</span>
      <span xml:id="t10" from="#a38" to="#a42" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the right hemisphere draws on a larger pool of presynaptic inputs in the superficial layers rather than on larger individual synaptic events</span>
      <span xml:id="t11" from="#a66" to="#a67" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">the recurrent excitation runs through polysynaptic circuits, which is what the long and variable network events indicate</span>
      <span xml:id="t12" from="#a113" to="#a114" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.7">a longer window in the right hemisphere is proposed to support echoic memory and the slower features of a call, such as prosody and intonation</span>
      <span xml:id="t13" from="#a147" to="#a148" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.6">a lower rate of synaptic pruning during the critical period is offered as a developmental origin of the stronger recurrence, with the layer specificity unexplained</span>
      <span xml:id="t14" from="#a145" to="#a146" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.6">lateralized input to parvalbumin positive interneurons is raised as a second, inhibitory route to a timescale difference</span>
      <span xml:id="t15" from="#a140" to="#a141" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[0]" resp="#tagger">Recurrent-connectivity asymmetry is not claimed to be the only mechanism of lateralized auditory processing; spectral specializations exist too.<note>what this limits: the sufficiency of the connectivity account: OUR PREVIOUS WORK SUGGESTS THAT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY NEURAL MECHANISM UNDERLYING LATERALIZED AUDITORY [processing]</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t16" from="#a149" to="#a151" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[1]" resp="#tagger">The findings come from an animal model and are only argued to be potentially informative for human auditory lateralization.<note>what this limits: the transfer to humans: THE RESULTS FROM THIS STUDY WERE FROM AN ANIMAL MODEL, offered as support for the human literature rather than as a finding about humans</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t17" from="#a45" to="#a46" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">very local connections under 50 micrometres lie on the diagonal of the map and are under-sampled, because direct excitation of the recorded cell masks them<note>what this limits: any claim about very local connectivity: VERY LOCAL CONNECTIONS (&lt;50 uM) ... LIE ALONG THE DIAGONAL AND WERE UNDER-SAMPLED DUE TO DIRECT EXCITATION - the nearest connections are systematically missing</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t18" from="#a49" to="#a50" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">collapsing each map onto the laminar axis discards the anteroposterior position, so two separate input hotspots become one<note>what this limits: every laminar input map in the paper: ANTEROPOSTERIOR INFORMATION IS DISCARDED, SUCH THAT THE 2 L6 INPUT HOTSPOTS FOR THE L3 CELL COLLAPSE TO A SINGLE SPOT - two sources appear as one</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t19" from="#a30" to="#a31" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">pixels where more than half the cells showed a direct response are masked out of the analysis entirely<note>what this limits: the spatial coverage of every map: MASKED AREAS INDICATE DIRECT HITS IN &gt;50% OF CELLS FOR THAT REGION - those regions are excluded from analysis entirely</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t20" from="#a140" to="#a142" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">temporal integration is not claimed to be the only lateralized mechanism, since the same laboratory reports spectral asymmetries as well<note>what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - temporal integration is one mechanism among several</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t21" from="#a143" to="#a144" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">inhibitory mechanisms are an untested alternative route to a hemispheric difference in timescale<note>what this limits: the exclusivity of the recurrent-connectivity explanation: INHIBITORY MECHANISMS HAVE ALSO BEEN PROPOSED TO IMPACT NETWORK TIME CONSTANTS - an untested alternative route</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t22" from="#a76" to="#a77" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.8">the time constant is read from a first-order approximation in which a single fitted exponential is assumed to reflect the population, not just the cell<note>what this limits: every reported time constant: it rests on THE FIRST-ORDER APPROXIMATION OF A SYSTEM, with one fitted exponential standing for the whole</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t23" from="#a149" to="#a150" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the result is from an animal model and is offered as support for, not proof of, the human findings<note>what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1] - an animal model supporting, not proving, the human findings</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t24" from="#a9" to="#a10" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the asymmetry in integration windows between the left and right superior temporal gyrus, imported as the target a mouse circuit should explain</span>
      <span xml:id="t25" from="#a182" to="#a184" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the DG model, a spiking generative model that makes binarized spike trains by thresholding a latent Gaussian series with a given correlation structure</span>
      <span xml:id="t26" from="#a76" to="#a77" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the first-order approximation in which positive feedback lengthens the effective time constant of a decaying population</span>
      <span xml:id="t27" from="#a131" to="#a136" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">syllable and intersyllabic durations, used as the yardstick the two measured time constants are compared against</span>
      <span xml:id="t28" from="#a152" to="#a153" type="controls" ana="#controls[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">a shifting-X sampling pattern, rotated and transposed between map iterations, so successive sites are never neighbours<note>eliminates: local carry-over from recently stimulated tissue - adjacent sites sampled in sequence would inherit adaptation from each other and the map would encode the sampling order · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t29" from="#a84" to="#a87" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[21]" resp="#paper">bias<term>bias</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t30" from="#a84" to="#a85" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[24]" resp="#paper">firing rate<term>firing rate</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t31" from="#a99" to="#a103" type="senses" ana="#senses[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">THE SAME QUANTITY, THREE ESTIMATORS, AND THE ABSOLUTE VALUES DISAGREE BY MORE THAN TWICE: the left network time constant is 82 ms by the quasi-Bayesian posterior, 106.1 ms by a trimmed average and 192.9 ms by the median, and all three are reported as consistent because only the DIRECTION of the hemispheric difference is stable</span>
      <span xml:id="t32" from="#a99" to="#a103" type="senses" ana="#senses[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">and the paper says which of the three is distorted and why - the median is biased because the outliers cannot be symmetric around a quantity bounded below by zero</span>
      <span xml:id="t33" from="#a91" to="#a92" type="senses" ana="#senses[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">so a network time constant is not a number that can be joined across papers without its estimator: the same neurons yield 82 or 193 ms depending on how the unequally informative cells are combined</span>
      <span xml:id="t34" from="#a36" to="#a37" type="senses" ana="#senses[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">TWO READINGS OF ONE OBSERVATION, EACH GIVEN A SIGNATURE BEFORE THE MEASUREMENT: more input to the right hemisphere could mean a similar pool of sources with larger events, or a larger pool with the same event sizes, and the amplitude distribution is what separates them</span>
      <span xml:id="t35" from="#a47" to="#a48" type="senses" ana="#senses[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">a normalisation is deliberately NOT applied, and the reason is a measurement rather than an assumption - density and photoexcitability were previously shown not to differ, so dividing by them would add noise without removing bias</span>
      <span xml:id="t36" from="#a84" to="#a85" type="senses" ana="#senses[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the standard remedy is stated to fail here: resampling a low signal-to-noise spike train with a biased estimator makes the variance look small and manufactures a confident wrong answer</span>
      <span xml:id="t37" from="#a91" to="#a92" type="senses" ana="#senses[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">neurons are WEIGHTED rather than discarded, so the usual inclusion threshold - a minimum firing rate or a clean autocorrelation - never has to be chosen, and the sample is not defined by the analyst</span>
      <span xml:id="t38" from="#a93" to="#a94" type="senses" ana="#senses[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">a hemisphere here is an entire cortical area treated as one population with one shared time constant, which is the level at which the claim is made even though every measurement is per neuron</span>
      <span xml:id="t39" from="#a13" to="#a15" type="alternatives" ana="#alternatives.claim_type" resp="#tagger">claim_type: mechanism<note>a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: mechanism — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t40" from="#a20" to="#a22" type="alternatives" ana="#alternatives.method" resp="#tagger">method: glutamate-uncaging laser scanning photostimulation to map excitatory input to principal neurons in every layer of both hemispheres, disinhibited slices to test recurrent activity, and cell-attached recordings in awake mice whose spike autocorrelations are fitted with a dichotomized Gaussian surrogate model<note>a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t41" from="#a9" to="#a10" type="alternatives" ana="#alternatives.phenomenon" resp="#tagger">phenomenon: hemispheric asymmetry in temporal integration: the left auditory cortex integrates over a shorter window than the right<note>a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: hemispheric lateralization of temporal integration in auditory cortex — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t42" from="#a109" to="#a110" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[0]" resp="#tagger">builds-on → the authors&#x27; earlier mapping of lateralized circuit motifs in mouse auditory cortex (reference [6])</span>
      <span xml:id="t43" from="#a129" to="#a130" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[1]" resp="#tagger">extends → the proposal that each hemisphere hosts neuronal ensembles with different integration time constants (reference [4])</span>
      <span xml:id="t44" from="#a16" to="#a17" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">extends → the authors&#x27; own mapping of lateralized Layer 3 organisation in mouse auditory cortex, which showed a wiring asymmetry without measuring its temporal consequence</span>
      <span xml:id="t45" from="#a9" to="#a10" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">supports → human imaging and lesion work placing shorter integration windows in the left superior temporal gyrus and longer ones in the right</span>
      <span xml:id="t46" from="#a18" to="#a19" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">supports → gerbil lesion studies reporting a right-hemisphere role in global temporal cues and a left-hemisphere role in local ones</span>
      <span xml:id="t47" from="#a115" to="#a116" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">qualifies → the existing correlational literature linking recurrent architecture to long timescales, which the paper describes as only indirect and never compared within one system<note>status: the paper&#x27;s own words: indirect evidence · differs in: THE AXIS IS THE DIRECTNESS OF THE EVIDENCE. &#x27;Although there has been a bevy of theories and computational models, only indirect evidence exists correlating recurrent anatomical structure with observed persistent activity or longer time constants.&#x27; A large modelling literature and a thin empirical one are distinguished by what has actually been measured against what has been assumed - so the count of supporting papers is not the count of supporting observations.</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t48" from="#a137" to="#a138" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">supports → the proposal that the two hemispheres run different integration constants in parallel on the same signal</span>
      <span xml:id="t49" from="#a143" to="#a144" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">qualifies → its own claim, by naming inhibitory circuit differences as a second untested mechanism for the same timescale asymmetry</span>
      <span xml:id="t50" from="#a13" to="#a15" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">recurrent connections —causes→ time constant<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: THE WHOLE PAPER IN ONE SENTENCE, STATED BEFORE ANY DATA: recurrent excitation introduces positive feedback that counteracts the decay of individual neurons, so the population runs slower
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but &#x27;ONE POSSIBLE mechanism&#x27; - recurrent connections WOULD lengthen the time constant; causes is hedged.</note><term>recurrent connections</term><term>time constant</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t51" from="#a76" to="#a77" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">excitatory feedback —causes→ time constant<note>direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 1 · note: and the link is derived rather than asserted - in the first-order system the feedback strength subtracts from the decay rate, so the effective constant is longer</note><term>excitatory feedback</term><term>time constant</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t52" from="#a56" to="#a58" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">recurrent connections —part-of→ recurrent loops<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: 5 loops in the left auditory cortex and 10 in the right, counted from pathways in the 75th percentile</note><term>recurrent connections</term><term>recurrent loops</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t53" from="#a56" to="#a58" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">right ACx —contrasted-with→ left ACx<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: the comparison the whole design exists to make, and it is made within animals wherever possible</note><term>right ACx</term><term>left ACx</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t54" from="#a20" to="#a22" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">LSPS —operationalised-as→ glutamate uncaging<note>strength of the relation: 1</note><term>LSPS</term><term>glutamate uncaging</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t55" from="#a26" to="#a27" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">synaptic input —operationalised-as→ map pixels<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: the hemispheric test is run pixel by pixel, with each cell&#x27;s average map value as one data point
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but synaptic input is compared per map pixel; operationalised-as is the wrong type.</note><term>synaptic input</term><term>map pixels</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t56" from="#a38" to="#a42" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[11]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">presynaptic inputs —part-of→ superficial layers<note>strength of the relation: 1</note><term>presynaptic inputs</term><term>superficial layers</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t57" from="#a182" to="#a184" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[15]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">autocorrelation —operationalised-as→ DG model<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: the model exists to reproduce a given rate and autocorrelation, which is exactly what makes the surrogates a test of the estimator rather than of the data
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the DG model CAPTURES autocorrelations; operationalised-as is the wrong type.</note><term>autocorrelation</term><term>DG model</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t58" from="#a86" to="#a88" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[16]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">surrogate data —operationalised-as→ autocorrelation<note>strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the surrogate data REPRODUCE the autocorrelation; operationalised-as is the wrong type.</note><term>surrogate data</term><term>autocorrelation</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t59" from="#a86" to="#a88" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[17]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">bias —operationalised-as→ surrogate data<note>strength of the relation: 1 · about this quote: DOUBTFUL, found by an audit that read the edge against its span: method to estimate bias. The edge is kept live; a reader should weigh it with this in mind. · note: the estimator is run on data whose true answer is known, and the difference is subtracted from the real fit
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but surrogate data are used to ESTIMATE bias; operationalised-as is the wrong type.</note><term>bias</term><term>surrogate data</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t60" from="#a82" to="#a83" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[18]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">signal-to-noise —causes→ bias<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: a low-rate or weakly engaged neuron does not carry the network constant, so its fit is both biased and uncertain</note><term>signal-to-noise</term><term>bias</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t61" from="#a180" to="#a181" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[22]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">time constant —operationalised-as→ autocorrelation<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: and the first 20 ms is dropped on purpose, because the fastest component belongs to the cell rather than to the network
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but time constants are read from the autocorrelation; the edge runs loose.</note><term>time constant</term><term>autocorrelation</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t62" from="#a104" to="#a108" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[23]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">time constant —distinct-from→ firing rate<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: THE CONFOUND IS APPORTIONED, NOT DISMISSED: rates were higher on the right, so the share of the timescale difference the rate difference could explain is computed - 7.03 ms, under a fifth</note><term>time constant</term><term>firing rate</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t63" from="#a5" to="#a6" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[28]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">temporal integration —part-of→ lateralization<note>strength of the relation: 1</note><term>temporal integration</term><term>lateralization</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t64" from="#a34" to="#a35" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[31]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">tonotopic axis —part-of→ right ACx<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: L6 intralaminar input is complementary between hemispheres - higher frequency bands on the left, lower on the right
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the right ACx has a tonotopic input pattern; part-of is the wrong type.</note><term>tonotopic axis</term><term>right ACx</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t65" from="#a145" to="#a146" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[32]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">PV+ —part-of→ superficial layers<note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: the inhibitory route to the same asymmetry, already known to be lateralized and left untested here</note><term>PV+</term><term>superficial layers</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t66" from="#a113" to="#a114" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[34]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.7">echoic memory —part-of→ right ACx<note>strength of the relation: 0.7
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but right-ACx recurrence SUGGESTS enhanced echoic memory; part-of is the wrong type.</note><term>echoic memory</term><term>right ACx</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t67" from="#a166" to="#a167" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[0]" resp="#tagger">t-test<term>t-test</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t68" from="#a32" to="#a33" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[1]" resp="#tagger">p-value<term>p-value</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t69" from="#a60" to="#a61" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[2]" resp="#tagger">Wilcoxon rank-sum test<term>Wilcoxon rank-sum test</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t70" from="#a97" to="#a98" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[3]" resp="#tagger">Bayes factor<term>Bayes factor</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t71" from="#a95" to="#a96" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[4]" resp="#tagger">credible interval<term>credible interval</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t72" from="#a178" to="#a179" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[5]" resp="#tagger">nonlinear least squares curve fitting<term>nonlinear least squares curve fitting</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t73" from="#a185" to="#a186" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[6]" resp="#tagger">maximum likelihood estimation<term>maximum likelihood estimation</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t74" from="#a99" to="#a100" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[7]" resp="#tagger">standard error of the mean<term>standard error of the mean</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t75" from="#a101" to="#a102" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[8]" resp="#tagger">median<term>median</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t76" from="#a106" to="#a107" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[9]" resp="#tagger">regression<term>regression</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t77" from="#a168" to="#a169" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[10]" resp="#tagger">randomization (permutation) control<term>randomization (permutation) control</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t78" from="#a176" to="#a177" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[11]" resp="#tagger">autocorrelation<term>autocorrelation</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t79" from="#a26" to="#a27" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[12]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">unpaired t tests<term>unpaired t tests</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t80" from="#a59" to="#a61" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[13]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">Wilcoxon rank sum<term>Wilcoxon rank sum</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t81" from="#a95" to="#a98" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[14]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">Bayes factor<term>Bayes factor</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t82" from="#a104" to="#a108" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[15]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">weighted linear regression<term>weighted linear regression</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t83" from="#a95" to="#a98" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[16]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">credible interval<term>credible interval</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t84" from="#a180" to="#a181" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[17]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.6">nonlinear least squares<term>nonlinear least squares</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t85" from="#a51" to="#a52" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[0]" resp="#tagger">Synaptic connections within the superficial layers were stronger in the right auditory cortex than in the left, the largest hemispheric asymmetry in the laminar connectivity maps.</span>
      <span xml:id="t86" from="#a53" to="#a54" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[1]" resp="#tagger">Both the fractional input to and the fractional output of Layers 2 to 4 were significantly greater in the right auditory cortex than in the left.</span>
      <span xml:id="t87" from="#a56" to="#a57" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[2]" resp="#tagger">The right auditory cortex contained twice as many recurrent loops as the left, ten versus five.</span>
      <span xml:id="t88" from="#a41" to="#a42" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[3]" resp="#tagger">The stronger superficial-layer input in the right hemisphere is attributed to a larger pool of presynaptic inputs.</span>
      <span xml:id="t89" from="#a64" to="#a65" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[4]" resp="#tagger">When inhibition was partially blocked in slices, photostimulation-evoked network events lasted significantly longer in the right auditory cortex than in the left.</span>
      <span xml:id="t90" from="#a95" to="#a96" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[5]" resp="#tagger">In awake mice the network time constant of spontaneous activity in superficial layers was 82 ms in the left auditory cortex versus 126 ms in the right.</span>
      <span xml:id="t91" from="#a71" to="#a72" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[6]" resp="#tagger">Current-voltage and current-firing-rate relationships did not differ between hemispheres.</span>
      <span xml:id="t92" from="#a106" to="#a107" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[7]" resp="#tagger">The higher baseline firing rate of right-hemisphere neurons accounts for only 7.03 ms of the hemispheric time-constant difference, so firing rate is ruled out as its cause.</span>
      <span xml:id="t93" from="#a133" to="#a134" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[8]" resp="#tagger">Pitch trajectories within a syllable of adult male mouse song last 30-90 ms.</span>
      <span xml:id="t94" from="#a135" to="#a136" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[9]" resp="#tagger">The right auditory cortex&#x27;s time constants instead match the intersyllabic intervals of mouse vocalizations, which average 140 ms.</span>
      <span xml:id="t95" from="#a122" to="#a123" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[10]" resp="#tagger">The superficial-layer network of the right auditory cortex has an approximately 50% longer network time constant than the left.</span>
      <span xml:id="t96" from="#a26" to="#a27" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[11]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">excitatory input differed significantly between the hemispheres in most cortical layers, tested pixel by pixel</span>
      <span xml:id="t97" from="#a28" to="#a29" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[12]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">A SHUFFLED-LABEL NULL FOR A WHOLE MAP: reassigning each pixel to a hemisphere at random largely produced fewer significant differences</span>
      <span xml:id="t98" from="#a168" to="#a169" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[13]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the shuffle is built by pooling both hemispheres within a layer and redrawing two groups of the original sizes</span>
      <span xml:id="t99" from="#a53" to="#a55" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[14]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">fractional input and output of Layers 2 to 4 were greater in the right hemisphere, while input to L6 was greater in the left with no difference in its output</span>
      <span xml:id="t100" from="#a56" to="#a58" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[15]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">5 recurrent loops were identified in the left auditory cortex and 10 in the right</span>
      <span xml:id="t101" from="#a34" to="#a35" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[16]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">L6 intralaminar input was complementary along the tonotopic axis: higher frequency bands on the left, lower on the right</span>
      <span xml:id="t102" from="#a36" to="#a37" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[17]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">TWO MECHANISMS ENUMERATED BEFORE THE MEASUREMENT: a similar presynaptic pool with larger events, or a larger pool with the same event sizes</span>
      <span xml:id="t103" from="#a38" to="#a42" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[18]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">and the amplitude distribution decided between them - 1,090 events past threshold on the left against 1,761 on the right with similar distributions, so the pool is larger rather than the events</span>
      <span xml:id="t104" from="#a59" to="#a61" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[19]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">partly blocking inhibition produced more action potentials per stimulation site and more responsive sites in the right hemisphere across 16 cells from 4 animals</span>
      <span xml:id="t105" from="#a62" to="#a65" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[20]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">network events also lasted significantly longer in the right hemisphere</span>
      <span xml:id="t106" from="#a66" to="#a67" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[21]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">the long and variable events indicate that the recurrent excitation runs through polysynaptic circuits</span>
      <span xml:id="t107" from="#a70" to="#a73" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[22]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">THE SINGLE-CELL ALTERNATIVE IS MEASURED AND NULL: current-voltage, current-firing and resting potential all matched between hemispheres</span>
      <span xml:id="t108" from="#a95" to="#a98" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[23]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the network time constant was 82 ms on the left and 126 ms on the right, with the right significantly longer</span>
      <span xml:id="t109" from="#a99" to="#a103" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[24]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">THREE ESTIMATORS OF THE SAME QUANTITY DISAGREE BY MORE THAN TWICE AND ARE ALL REPORTED: 82 and 126 ms by the posterior, 106.1 and 118.8 by a trimmed average, 192.9 and 250.3 by the median</span>
      <span xml:id="t110" from="#a99" to="#a103" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[25]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">and the median is stated to be biased, because outliers cannot be symmetric around a quantity bounded below by zero</span>
      <span xml:id="t111" from="#a104" to="#a108" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[26]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">THE RIVAL EXPLANATION IS APPORTIONED: rates were higher on the right, but the regression explains 7.03 ms of the difference, less than a fifth</span>
      <span xml:id="t112" from="#a121" to="#a124" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[27]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the difference amounts to an approximately 50 percent longer network time constant on the right</span>
      <span xml:id="t113" from="#a131" to="#a136" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[28]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the two constants bracket the animal&#x27;s own calls: 30 to 90 ms pitch trajectories within a syllable on the left, 140 ms intersyllabic intervals on the right</span>
      <span xml:id="t114" from="#a125" to="#a126" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[29]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">claimed as the first explicit evidence that excitatory synaptic feedback predicts spontaneous network dynamics, using lateralization as the natural variation</span>
      <span xml:id="t115" from="#a47" to="#a48" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[30]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">A NORMALISATION DELIBERATELY NOT APPLIED: density and photoexcitability had already been shown not to differ, so the maps were left unnormalised</span>
      <span xml:id="t116" from="#a49" to="#a50" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[31]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">INFORMATION DELIBERATELY DISCARDED: summing each map along the tonotopic axis collapses two separate L6 hotspots into one</span>
      <span xml:id="t117" from="#a45" to="#a46" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[32]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">connections shorter than 50 micrometres are under-sampled because direct excitation masks the diagonal of the map</span>
      <span xml:id="t118" from="#a30" to="#a31" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[33]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">pixels with a direct response in more than half the cells are masked out of the analysis</span>
      <span xml:id="t119" from="#a154" to="#a155" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[34]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">about a tenth of patched neurons were excluded as presumptive inhibitory on a membrane capacitance threshold, along with cells with resting Vm above -50 mV, spontaneous repetitive firing, or passive membrane properties that fluctuated during collection</span>
      <span xml:id="t120" from="#a84" to="#a85" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[35]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">THE STANDARD REMEDY IS STATED TO FAIL: bootstrapping a low signal-to-noise spike train returns small constants with near-zero variance and manufactures a confident wrong answer</span>
      <span xml:id="t121" from="#a86" to="#a88" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[36]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">so surrogate spike trains are generated per neuron from the fitted autocorrelation, and the estimator is characterised on data whose answer is known</span>
      <span xml:id="t122" from="#a89" to="#a90" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[37]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the correction assumes the bias is identical between the real fit and the surrogate fits</span>
      <span xml:id="t123" from="#a91" to="#a92" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[38]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">NEURONS ARE WEIGHTED RATHER THAN DISCARDED, so no threshold on firing rate or autocorrelation quality had to be chosen and every neuron was used</span>
      <span xml:id="t124" from="#a93" to="#a94" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[39]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the aggregation assumes one shared network time constant per hemisphere, of which each neuron&#x27;s estimate is a noisy version</span>
      <span xml:id="t125" from="#a174" to="#a175" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[40]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the analysis was run blind to which hemisphere the data came from</span>
      <span xml:id="t126" from="#a180" to="#a181" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[41]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">the first 20 ms of each autocorrelation is dropped, because the fastest component belongs to the cell rather than the network</span>
      <span xml:id="t127" from="#a80" to="#a81" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[42]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">recordings were made in awake head-fixed mice because anaesthesia reduces the network contribution</span>
      <span xml:id="t128" from="#a119" to="#a120" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[43]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">spontaneous rather than evoked activity was used, because stimulus dynamics would enter the measured constant</span>
      <span xml:id="t129" from="#a170" to="#a171" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[44]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">one hemisphere was recorded per animal</span>
      <span xml:id="t130" from="#a172" to="#a173" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[45]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">tuning curves and response timing were used to confirm the electrode was in primary auditory cortex</span>
      <span xml:id="t131" from="#a158" to="#a159" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[46]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">left and right slices came from the same animals in the disinhibition experiments</span>
      <span xml:id="t132" from="#a115" to="#a116" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[47]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">existing evidence linking recurrent architecture to long timescales is described as only indirect, and never compared within one biological system</span>
      <span xml:id="t133" from="#a117" to="#a118" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[48]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">lateralization is used as the natural variation that makes the comparison possible</span>
      <span xml:id="t134" from="#a147" to="#a148" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[49]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">a lower rate of synaptic pruning is proposed as a developmental origin, with the layer specificity left unexplained</span>
      <span xml:id="t135" from="#a145" to="#a146" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[50]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">lateralized input to parvalbumin positive interneurons is named as a second, untested route to the same asymmetry</span>
      <span xml:id="t136" from="#a127" to="#a128" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[51]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">in humans the mechanism behind the same asymmetry is described as controversial and hard to prove</span>
      <span xml:id="t137" from="#a7" to="#a8" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[0]" resp="#tagger">lateralization<term>lateralization</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t138" from="#a131" to="#a132" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[1]" resp="#tagger">syllable<term>syllable</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t139" from="#a62" to="#a63" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[2]" resp="#tagger">duration of network events<term>duration of network events</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t140" from="#a182" to="#a183" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[3]" resp="#tagger">dichotomized Gaussian model<term>dichotomized Gaussian model</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t141" from="#a43" to="#a44" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[4]" resp="#tagger">input–output matrices<term>input–output matrices</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t142" from="#a182" to="#a184" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">DG model<term>DG model</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t143" from="#a20" to="#a22" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">LSPS<term>LSPS</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t144" from="#a62" to="#a65" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">network events<term>network events</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t145" from="#a76" to="#a77" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">excitatory feedback<term>excitatory feedback</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t146" from="#a131" to="#a136" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[9]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">syllables<term>syllables</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t147" from="#a164" to="#a165" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[0]" resp="#tagger">hemisphere<term>hemisphere</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t148" from="#a156" to="#a157" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[1]" resp="#tagger">disinhibition<term>disinhibition</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t149" from="#a74" to="#a75" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[2]" resp="#tagger">network time constant<term>network time constant</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t150" from="#a160" to="#a161" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[3]" resp="#tagger">mean current amplitude<term>mean current amplitude</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t151" from="#a24" to="#a25" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[5]" resp="#tagger">membrane potential<term>membrane potential</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t152" from="#a68" to="#a69" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[7]" resp="#tagger">stimulus grid<term>stimulus grid</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t153" from="#a104" to="#a105" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[8]" resp="#tagger">baseline firing rate<term>baseline firing rate</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t154" from="#a95" to="#a98" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[9]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">time constant<term>time constant</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t155" from="#a104" to="#a108" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[10]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">firing rate<term>firing rate</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t156" from="#a38" to="#a42" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[11]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">event amplitudes<term>event amplitudes</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t157" from="#a26" to="#a27" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[12]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">synaptic input<term>synaptic input</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t158" from="#a70" to="#a73" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[13]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">resting membrane potential<term>resting membrane potential</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t159" from="#a162" to="#a163" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[14]" resp="#tagger">number of action potentials<term>number of action potentials</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t160" from="#a162" to="#a163" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[15]" resp="#tagger">duration of network events<term>duration of network events</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t161" from="#a95" to="#a96" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[0]" resp="#tagger">82 ms ... 126 ms — network time constants of spontaneous activity in superficial layers, left versus right auditory cortex</span>
      <span xml:id="t162" from="#a56" to="#a57" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[1]" resp="#tagger">5 ... 10 — number of recurrent loops identified in the left versus the right auditory cortex</span>
      <span xml:id="t163" from="#a53" to="#a54" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[2]" resp="#tagger">p = 0.0079 for input, p = 0.0411 for output — significance of the greater fractional input and output of Layers 2 to 4 in the right auditory cortex</span>
      <span xml:id="t164" from="#a21" to="#a23" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[3]" resp="#tagger">n = 229 ... n = 209 — principal neurons recorded in Layers 2 to 6 of the left and right auditory cortex for the connectivity maps</span>
      <span xml:id="t165" from="#a39" to="#a40" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[4]" resp="#tagger">n = 1,090 ... n = 1,761 — synaptic events passing threshold in superficial layers of the left versus right auditory cortex, from equal numbers of cells</span>
      <span xml:id="t166" from="#a106" to="#a107" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[5]" resp="#tagger">7.03 ms — the part of the hemispheric time-constant difference attributable to the firing-rate difference</span>
      <span xml:id="t167" from="#a133" to="#a134" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[6]" resp="#tagger">30 to 90 ms — duration range of individual pitch trajectories within a syllable of adult male mouse vocalization</span>
      <span xml:id="t168" from="#a135" to="#a136" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[7]" resp="#tagger">140 ms — average intersyllabic interval in mouse vocalizations, matching the right-hemisphere time constant</span>
      <span xml:id="t169" from="#a99" to="#a100" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[8]" resp="#tagger">106.1 ms ( n = 13, SEM = 4.03) ... 118.8 ms ( n = 14, SEM = 3.71) — robust-average time constants for left and right auditory cortex after discarding outliers, used as a check on the Bayesian estimate</span>
      <span xml:id="t170" from="#a95" to="#a98" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[9]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">82 ms — left network time constant by the quasi-Bayesian posterior, 95 percent credible interval 66 to 99 ms</span>
      <span xml:id="t171" from="#a95" to="#a98" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[10]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">126 ms — right network time constant by the same estimator, 113 to 138 ms</span>
      <span xml:id="t172" from="#a99" to="#a103" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[11]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">106.1 ms and 192.9 ms — the SAME left time constant under a trimmed average and under the median - two further values for the quantity reported as 82 ms</span>
      <span xml:id="t173" from="#a104" to="#a108" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[12]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">7.03 ms — the share of the hemispheric timescale difference that the firing rate difference could account for, under a fifth of it</span>
      <span xml:id="t174" from="#a56" to="#a58" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[13]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">5 and 10 — recurrent loops identified in the left and right auditory cortex</span>
      <span xml:id="t175" from="#a38" to="#a42" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[14]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">1,090 and 1,761 — synaptic events past threshold in matched samples of 96 cells per hemisphere, the number that decided between the two mechanisms</span>
      <span xml:id="t176" from="#a20" to="#a22" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[15]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">229 and 209 — principal neurons mapped in the left and right auditory cortex</span>
      <span xml:id="t177" from="#a53" to="#a55" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[16]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">p = 0.0079 and p = 0.0411 — fractional input and output of Layers 2 to 4, greater on the right</span>
      <span xml:id="t178" from="#a131" to="#a136" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[17]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">30 to 90 ms — duration of pitch trajectories within a mouse syllable, the yardstick for the left constant</span>
      <span xml:id="t179" from="#a121" to="#a124" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[18]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">50% — how much longer the right network time constant is</span>
    </spanGrp>
  </standOff>
  <text>
    <body>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a0"/> Abstract</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a1"/>Brain asymmetry in the sensitivity to spectrotemporal modulation is an established functional feature that underlies the perception of speech and music.<anchor xml:id="a2"/> The left auditory cortex (ACx) is believed to specialize in processing fast temporal components of speech sounds, and the right ACx slower components. However, the circuit features and neural computations behind these lateralized spectrotemporal processes are poorly understood. To answer these mechanistic questions we use mice, an animal model that captures some relevant features of human communication systems. <anchor xml:id="a3"/>In this study, we screened for circuit features that could subserve temporal integration differences between the left and right ACx. We mapped excitatory input to principal neurons in all cortical layers and found significantly stronger recurrent connections in the superficial layers of the right ACx compared to the left. We hypothesized that the underlying recurrent neural dynamics would exhibit differential characteristic timescales corresponding to their hemispheric specialization. To investigate, we recorded spike trains from awake mice and estimated the network time constants using a statistical method to combine evidence from multiple weak signal-to-noise ratio neurons. We found longer temporal integration windows in the superficial layers of the right ACx compared to the left as predicted by stronger recurrent excitation.<anchor xml:id="a4"/> <anchor xml:id="a5"/>Our study shows substantial evidence linking stronger recurrent synaptic connections to longer network timescales. These findings support speech processing theories that purport asymmetry in temporal integration is a crucial feature of lateralization in auditory processing.<anchor xml:id="a6"/></p>
        <p>This study uses the mouse as a model system that captures relevant features of human lateralized processing of speech and music, revealing a novel mechanism whereby stronger recurrent activity in the Right Auditory Cortex led to longer temporal integration compared to the Left (consistent with the temporal scales of syllabic and supra-syllabic processing).</p>
        <p>Introduction</p>
        <p>Social communication calls have myriads of constituent sounds that are temporally and spectrally dynamic. The auditory system must have processes in place to quickly decode and encode ethologically relevant features of an auditory signal to elicit an appropriate response. <anchor xml:id="a7"/>Hemispheric asymmetry in sound processing (i.e., lateralization) has long been proposed to be critical in the dynamic processing of speech sounds.<anchor xml:id="a8"/> <anchor xml:id="a9"/>Human studies have shown that the left superior temporal gyrus (STG) is more capable of integrating information over a shorter timescale and plays a greater role in speech perception and phonological processing than the right [ 1 – 3 ]. On the other hand, the right STG has longer integration windows to potentially subserve the processing of suprasegmental information<anchor xml:id="a10"/> [ 4 , 5 ]. <anchor xml:id="a11"/>The unanswered question remains: What neural mechanisms underlie these differences in temporal integration?<anchor xml:id="a12"/> <anchor xml:id="a13"/>One possible mechanism we dissect in this study is interhemispheric differences in excitatory recurrent connections. <anchor xml:id="a14"/>This would introduce positive feedback that would counteract the exponential decay of individual neurons within a neural population, leading to effectively slower temporal dynamics with a longer time constant.<anchor xml:id="a15"/></p>
        <p>Studies of animal models can provide more mechanistic insight regarding circuit function. <anchor xml:id="a16"/>Circuit mapping of the mouse auditory cortex (ACx) has shown that the synaptic organization of Layer 3 (L3) differs between the 2 hemispheres. In the left ACx, principal neurons in L3 receive out-of-column excitatory input from L6 cells located in higher frequency bands, whereas in the right ACx, the same pathway has balanced frequency projections across the tonotopic axis. This lateralized synaptic organization is in turn associated with differences in sound-evoked activity in L3<anchor xml:id="a17"/> [ 6 ]. <anchor xml:id="a18"/>Behavioral studies in gerbils have reported asymmetries in temporal processing. Lesions in the right ACx impact discrimination of frequency sweep direction, suggesting it plays a role in processing global temporal cues. Whereas lesions in the left ACx impact discrimination of gap durations, implying a role in processing local temporal cues<anchor xml:id="a19"/> [ 7 ].</p>
        <p>Here, we tested directly whether there are differences in the temporal integration properties between the auditory cortices and dissected the underlying circuit dynamics. To assess cortical circuit mechanisms that could underlie hemispheric asymmetry in temporal processing, we used circuit-mapping techniques to screen for connectivity differences in excitatory pathways. We show novel differences in recurrent connectivity between the hemispheres, particularly in the superficial layers. To examine how these asymmetries in recurrence translate into differences in temporal integration, we recorded spontaneous spikes from awake mice and developed a statistical method to estimate time constants and their uncertainty from spike trains. Our method utilizes the dichotomized Gaussian (DG) spiking model to generate surrogate spike trains with a data matching autocorrelation function. The estimated time constants from each neuron recorded in superficial layers of the left and right ACx were aggregated to form a distribution over the network time constants. We found significant differences in temporal integration consistent with the timescale of hypothesized lateralized auditory signal processing. Numerous models of neural architectures have been proposed to account for observed differences in integration timescales throughout the brain. Here, we show, for the first time, compelling evidence of differences in synaptic circuit organization that translate into distinct temporal integration windows.</p>
        <p>Results</p>
        <p>Lateralized connectivity motifs are found in every layer of the auditory cortices</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a20"/>To screen for hemispheric differences in the organization of excitatory pathways, we used glutamate uncaging-based laser scanning photostimulation (LSPS; [ 8 ]). <anchor xml:id="a21"/>We performed voltage-clamp recordings on principal neurons in Layers 2 to 6 of the left ( n = 229) and right ( n = 209) ACx<anchor xml:id="a22"/>, ( Fig 1A and 1B ).<anchor xml:id="a23"/> The uncaging stimulus grid covered the entire primary ACx and all cortical layers (total area of 1.125*1.125 mm, 256 stimulation sites/map pixels). Hence, we specifically measured only intracortical sources of synaptic input. <anchor xml:id="a24"/>We focused on excitatory input by holding the membrane potential at the reversal for inhibition (-70 mV).<anchor xml:id="a25"/> <anchor xml:id="a26"/>To assess potential synaptic connectivity differences in each cortical layer, we performed a statistical comparison of the population data underlying corresponding map pixels from each hemisphere. We found statistically significant differences in the strength and organization of synaptic input between most layers of the auditory cortices<anchor xml:id="a27"/> ( Fig 1C ). <anchor xml:id="a28"/>To assess the likelihood that these differences were by chance, we randomly assigned each pixel to the left or right ACx. We largely found fewer significant differences between the hemispheres when the pixels were randomized<anchor xml:id="a29"/> ( Fig 1D ).</p>
        <p>Fig 1. Summary of excitatory pathways in the left and right ACx across all cortical layers.</p>
        <p>Open in a new tab</p>
        <p>(A, B) Patterns of excitatory synaptic input were recorded using LSPS as described in the text. Maps were averaged over all cells in each layer and then interpolated for clarity. <anchor xml:id="a30"/>Masked areas indicate direct hits in &gt;50% of cells for that region.<anchor xml:id="a31"/> White triangles denote location of somata. Laminar boundaries were defined with respect to the fractional distance from the L1/L2 boundary to the white matter. L5A and L5B were defined as the upper and lower 50% of L5, respectively. N indicates number of recorded cells for each panel. <anchor xml:id="a32"/>(C) Pixel-wise significance maps ( p &lt; 0.05, unpaired 2-tailed t tests) for response amplitude in left vs. right ACx.<anchor xml:id="a33"/> Red and green denote significantly higher average response in the left and right ACx, respectively. Gray denotes no significant difference. (D) Same as C but maps from both hemispheres were pooled and assigned to 2 groups at random with the same total N shown in A, B. (E) Graphs of the significant pixel counts for measured (C) and random (D) comparisons. (F) Models depicting potential synaptic mechanisms underlying the right ACx’s higher excitatory connectivity in superficial layers compared to the left ACx. The left panel shows both cortices with a similar pool of presynaptic sources of EPSCs (traces) projecting onto postsynaptic targets (triangles), but the distribution of event amplitudes differs. The right panel shows the left and right ACx differ in their pool of presynaptic inputs but have a similar event amplitude distribution. (G) Observed frequency of event amplitudes in superficial layers of the left and right ACx. Inset shows empirical cumulative distribution of event amplitudes. The data underlying all the plots in this figure are included in S1 Data . ACx, auditory cortex; LSPS, laser scanning photostimulation.</p>
        <p>A large source of presynaptic input to L2 in the right ACx arose from intralaminar and other superficial layers ( Fig 1A–1C ). In contrast, in the left ACx, the most influential presynaptic pathway to L2 arose from deep layers (L5/6), as was reported previously [ 9 ]. There were also hemispheric differences in the organization of input to L3, which were also previously described in detail [ 6 ]. Intracortical input to L4 was stronger in the left ACx compared to the right ( Fig 1A–1C ). Layers 5A and 5B are functionally distinct in the ACx [ 10 , 11 ], and the organization of their intracortical synaptic input appears to be lateralized. In the left ACx, there was greater ascending input to L5A compared to the right ACx. Conversely, there was greater descending input to L5B in the right ACx compared to the left ACx ( Fig 1A–1C ). <anchor xml:id="a34"/>Finally, L6 had complementary patterns of intralaminar synaptic input along the tonotopic axis: The left ACx had greater input arising from higher frequency bands, and the right ACx from lower frequency bands<anchor xml:id="a35"/> ( Fig 1A–1C ). A comparison of the number of measured and random pixels for each layer revealed that the most abundant differences in synaptic input between the hemispheres arose in the superficial layers of the left and right ACx ( Fig 1E ). <anchor xml:id="a36"/>Several synaptic mechanisms could underlie the observation of more significant hotspots in superficial layers of the right ACx compared to the left. One possibility is that each hemisphere has a similar pool of presynaptic inputs in these layers, but individual synaptic events were larger in the right ACx compared to the left ( Fig 1F left). Another possibility is that the distribution of the synaptic events’ amplitudes is similar between the hemispheres, but there is a larger pool of presynaptic inputs in the right ACx compared to the left ( Fig 1F right).<anchor xml:id="a37"/> <anchor xml:id="a38"/>To disentangle these possibilities, we analyzed the distribution of event amplitudes in superficial layers (L2-4). We randomly chose the same number of cells to analyze from each hemisphere ( n = 96), and the threshold for synaptic events was set to above the average baseline events. <anchor xml:id="a39"/>Fewer synaptic events met the threshold criteria in the left ACx ( n = 1,090) compared to the right ( n = 1,761, Fig 1G ).<anchor xml:id="a40"/> Additionally, the distribution of event amplitudes was similar between the auditory cortices ( Fig 1G inset). <anchor xml:id="a41"/>This supports the prediction that there is a larger pool of presynaptic inputs in superficial layers of the right ACx.<anchor xml:id="a42"/></p>
        <p>Lateralized recurrent connectivity in superficial layers of the auditory cortices</p>
        <p>Neural circuits composed of neurons with short time constants can effectively have long temporal memory and computation by forming a long feedforward chain or concise recurrent feedback loops [ 12 ]. Therefore, we investigated whether the synaptic connectivity differences translate into systematic differences in the recurrent interlaminar feedback. To compare the relative strength of interlaminar pathways between the hemispheres, we computed connectivity matrices for the left and right ACx. <anchor xml:id="a43"/>These input–output matrices (presynaptic-postsynaptic) summarize the organization of local excitatory networks [ 13 , 14 ].<anchor xml:id="a44"/> We ordered maps according to the cortical depth of the soma and summed the 2D LSPS-derived input maps for each cell over the tonotopic axis (across the horizontal dimension), which produced vectors of input strength as a function of cortical depth ( Fig 2A ). Therefore, each neuron’s input vector represents presynaptic input from different laminar locations. Each row in the laminar connectivity matrix represents input to that specific laminar location, and each column represents synaptic output from that laminar location. <anchor xml:id="a45"/>Very local connections (&lt;50 μm) within each layer lie along the diagonal and were under-sampled due to direct excitation<anchor xml:id="a46"/> [ 13 ]. <anchor xml:id="a47"/>In a previous study, we determined that neuronal density and photoexcitability of individual cells did not significantly differ between the hemispheres; therefore, we did not normalize maps by these factors<anchor xml:id="a48"/> [ 6 ].</p>
        <p>Fig 2. Recurrent connections are significantly stronger in superficial layers of the right ACx.</p>
        <p>Open in a new tab</p>
        <p>(A) Schematic diagram of the generation of laminar input–output maps [ 14 ]. Left , 2D LSPS-derived input maps for each cell were summed over the anterior-posterior axis to produce 1D maps of input strength vs. cortical depth (vertical strips). <anchor xml:id="a49"/>Note that anteroposterior information is discarded, such that the 2 L6 input hotspots for the L3 cell (top) collapse to a single spot.<anchor xml:id="a50"/> Triangles denote soma location. Middle , the 1D maps were rotated 90 degrees (for graphic clarity), sorted by cortical depth of the soma, and binned (bin size = 80 μm). Right , the binned maps were combined into a single 2D map of presynaptic input location (x axis) vs. binned postsynaptic soma location (y axis). Maps were interpolated for display. (B) Input–output map for the left ACx, constructed as shown in A. Diagonal line indicates x = y with respect to cortical depth. The diagonal does not span the full x axis because recorded cell bodies (y axis) were confined between L2 and L6, whereas the stimulation grid (x axis) extended more broadly from L1 into the white matter. (C) Same as B but for the right ACx. (D) Same map as in B but showing only pathways in the 75th percentile and above in the left ACx. (E) Same as D but for the right ACx. (F) Summary of loops and pathways in the 75th percentile and above in the left ACx and right ACx (G). In F and G, the arrow thickness indicates strength of the pathway (thickest in the 99th percentile to thinnest in the 75th percentile), ascending pathways are shown in black, descending in gray, recurrent in violet, and open loop in dashed line. The data underlying all the plots in this figure are included in S1 Data . ACx, auditory cortex; LSPS, laser scanning photostimulation.</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a51"/>The most striking asymmetry in the laminar connectivity matrices was the stronger synaptic connections in superficial layers of the right ACx compared to the left ( Fig 2B and 2C ).<anchor xml:id="a52"/> To quantify the strengths of the pathways, we calculated fractional input and output. In this analysis, we summed along rows and columns and normalized by the total [ 14 ]. <anchor xml:id="a53"/>The fractional input and output of Layers 2 to 4 was significantly greater in the right ACx ( p = 0.0079 for input, p = 0.0411 for output).<anchor xml:id="a54"/> In the deeper layers, input to L6 was significantly greater in the left ACx ( p &lt;&lt;0.001), but there was no hemispheric difference in the output.<anchor xml:id="a55"/> Significant hemispheric differences in intralaminar and interlaminar loops were a major theme in the organization of auditory circuits. Using the input/output laminar connectivity matrices of the left and right ACx, we examined pathways in the 75th percentile to capture the most significant trends. In the left ACx, we observed strong intralaminar recurrent connectivity only in L6 and to a lesser extent in Layers 2 and 5B ( Fig 2D ). The strongest interlaminar recurrent connections were observed between deep layers, where L5B and 6 form nested loops (intralaminar loops within L5B and 6, which are in turn connected to each other). In contrast to the sparser prevalence of recurrent connections and loops in the left ACx, these were the dominant motifs in the right ACx. All cortical layers (except L5) in the right ACx were part of nested loops: At the innermost level, there were intralaminar loops (input returning to the same layer), followed by local interlaminar loops between neighboring layers, and transcortical loops that coupled superficial and deep layers ( Fig 2E and 2G ). <anchor xml:id="a56"/>On the whole, we identified 5 recurrent loops in the left ACx and 10 in the right ACx.<anchor xml:id="a57"/> Taken together, these widespread loops of recurrent connections suggest the right ACx may have different temporal filtering properties compared to the left ACx.<anchor xml:id="a58"/></p>
        <p>Hemispheric differences in recurrent activity</p>
        <p>A potential result of stronger recurrent excitatory connectivity in a circuit is the ability to generate longer network events [ 15 , 16 ]. To test whether the greater recurrent excitatory connectivity observed in the right ACx leads to stronger and longer recurrent activity compared to the left ACx, we used experimental conditions to disinhibit slices [ 14 ]. The input–output connectivity maps in Fig 1 were obtained in a slice preparation that reduced excitation to prevent polysynaptic activity [ 8 ]. Therefore, to promote excitation in the slice, we partially blocked inhibitory circuits using the GABA A receptor antagonist SR95531 (see Methods for more experimental details). We performed LSPS, recorded in the cell-attached configuration from excitatory neurons in L2-4, and compared network events in the left and right ACx in slices from the same animal. Network events were only triggered by photostimulation and were largely initiated by stimulating sites in superficial layers of the ACx. <anchor xml:id="a59"/>A representative example of events triggered in the left and right ACx of the same animal using the same concentration of SR95531 shows a greater number of action potentials generated per stimulation site and more sites evoking action potential firing in the right ACx ( Fig 3A and 3B left and middle panels). <anchor xml:id="a60"/>This difference in activity was significant across animals ( Fig 3A and 3B right panels, n = 16 cells, 4 animals, p &lt; 0.001, Wilcoxon rank sum).<anchor xml:id="a61"/> <anchor xml:id="a62"/>We also quantified the duration of these network events: the time from the first photostimulation-evoked action potential to the return of the membrane potential back to the pre-stimulus baseline ( Fig 3C ).<anchor xml:id="a63"/> <anchor xml:id="a64"/>The duration of network events was significantly longer in the right ACx compared to the left ( Fig 3D , p &lt;&lt;0.001 Wilcoxon rank sum.)<anchor xml:id="a65"/> <anchor xml:id="a66"/>The long duration and variability of these events suggest that the recurrent excitation results from polysynaptic circuits.<anchor xml:id="a67"/> In summary, disinhibiting the slice revealed the network-wide impact of stronger recurrent excitatory connectivity in the right ACx.</p>
        <p>Fig 3. Stronger network events in the right ACx.</p>
        <p>Open in a new tab</p>
        <p>(A, left) All traces of cell-attached recording from an L3 excitatory neuron in the left ACx with 4 μm concentration of SR95531 in the bath. Black arrow on the x axis marks the onset of photostimulation. (A, middle) Map of action potentials evoked in the cell shown in the left panel and the population of cells recorded in the left ACx ( n = 8, right). Triangles show position of the cells recorded. (B, left and middle) Same experimental conditions as in A, but conducted in the right ACx of the same animal. (B, right) Population map of all cells recorded in the right ACx ( n = 8). (C) Duration of events was calculated from the onset of the first action potential to the return of the membrane potential back to baseline period (see Methods for details). (D) The duration of network events is shown using the survival function, which demonstrates that duration times are shorter in the left ACx compared to the right ( n = 16). <anchor xml:id="a68"/>All cells were mapped using the same number of stimulus sites (i.e., same stimulus grid).<anchor xml:id="a69"/> The data underlying all the plots in this figure are included in S1 Data . ACx, auditory cortex.</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a70"/>Hemispheric differences in membrane properties could also contribute to network activity and time constants. To examine this possibility, we compared the current-voltage and current-firing rate relationship of neurons in superficial layers of the left and right ACx ( S1 Fig ). <anchor xml:id="a71"/>We found no hemispheric differences between these input–output relationships (I/V, p = 0.71 n = 10; I/F, p = 0.84 n = 10).<anchor xml:id="a72"/> Hemispheric differences in resting membrane potential were also not significant ( p = 0.86, mean left ACx = −73.4 mV, sem = 1.24, n = 28; mean right ACx = −73.2 mV, sem = 1.23, n = 28).<anchor xml:id="a73"/></p>
        <p>Network time constant is longer in superficial layers of the right auditory cortex</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a74"/>To determine if hemispheric differences in recurrent connectivity impacted the network dynamics, we measured the time constant of the spontaneous neural activity in awake animals.<anchor xml:id="a75"/> <anchor xml:id="a76"/>In the first-order approximation of a system, the causal link between recurrent anatomy and time constant is based on the fact that excitatory feedback increases the time constant, therefore it provides an approximation of the dynamics by measuring how quickly the correlation in the neural activity decays over time. Without recurrent connectivity, the time constant of a single neuron’s activity is at the scale of the membrane time constant and delays. Whereas with recurrent connectivity, the fluctuations in the network activity can decay more slowly (i.e., longer time constant) due to effective self-excitation<anchor xml:id="a77"/> (see Methods for mathematical explanation). Therefore, we studied whether hemispheric differences in recurrent connectivity translate into a difference in the network time constants reflected in a single neuron’s spontaneous activity in the absence of auditory stimuli. <anchor xml:id="a78"/>We performed cell-attached recordings in superficial layers (150 to 500 μm below the cortical surface) of the left and right ACx.<anchor xml:id="a79"/> <anchor xml:id="a80"/>Because anesthesia can reduce the contribution of network activity [ 17 ], we conducted experiments in head-fixed awake mice.<anchor xml:id="a81"/> Neurons in both auditory cortices were active in the absence of auditory stimuli and displayed activity that suggested the presence of temporal correlations ( Fig 4C ).</p>
        <p>Fig 4. Timescales of neural activity were longer in the right ACx.</p>
        <p>Open in a new tab</p>
        <p>(A) Schematic of the fitted exponential decay and its parameters. (B) Sketch of the procedure to estimate the bias and uncertainty in the time constant of single neurons. We used the DG model with neuron-specified exponential autocorrelations to generate surrogate data, re-fit exponentials, and extract surrogate time constants. Finally, we fit a lognormal distribution to the surrogate time constants to estimate the bias and variance. (C) Example left and right ACx data, autocorrelations, and sample of surrogate data generated from DG model with the extracted autocorrelation. (D) Bias corrected time constant with its uncertainty against mean firing rate for each neuron. Time constant error bars are the standard deviation of the surrogate lognormal distribution. Firing rate error bars are the standard error over trials. (E) Time constant posterior distributions obtained by integrating the single neuron observations for each hemisphere. The total number of cells in panels D and E is 45 (23 right ACx, 22 left ACx). The data underlying all the plots in this figure are included in S1 Data and S1 File. ACx, auditory cortex; DG, dichotomized Gaussian.</p>
        <p>We extracted the time constant of individual cells by fitting an exponential decay with a pedestal to their autocorrelograms ( Fig 4A ). <anchor xml:id="a82"/>However, precise quantification of time constants from spike trains and their autocorrelograms can be challenging [ 18 , 19 ] especially for neurons with low firing rates or low degrees of engagement with the network. In such a low signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) regime where spike trains (signal + noise) may not be very informative about the network time constant (signal), the estimated time constant can exhibit large bias and variance.<anchor xml:id="a83"/> <anchor xml:id="a84"/>Unfortunately, bootstrapping or resampling procedures cannot practically correct for these issues. For example, if there are only a handful of spikes, bootstrap samples may consistently provide very small time constants such that the variance of the estimator is close to zero. However, in this low firing rate regime, the uncertainty of the estimator should be large if we properly accounted for the spiking noise—resampling low SNR data combined with a strongly biased estimator can create an illusion of a (misleading) high SNR conclusion.<anchor xml:id="a85"/></p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a86"/>To better estimate the bias<anchor xml:id="a87"/> and variance of the estimated time constant itself, we used a method for generating spike trains from a parametric surrogate distribution ( Fig 4B , Methods). Briefly, for each neuron, we used the exponential fit of the data’s autocorrelation to build a probabilistic model (see Methods ) that we used to generate random data that reproduces the given autocorrelation. We generated surrogate data from this model that matched the length and sampling rate of the recording. By construction, the generated data reproduced the firing rate and autocorrelation of the original data on average, while single realizations showed variability determined by the assumed noise.<anchor xml:id="a88"/> We then re-fit exponential decays to the surrogate data and extracted surrogate time constants from each of the realizations. <anchor xml:id="a89"/>Using this surrogate time constant distribution, we corrected the bias by assuming that the bias is identical between data and surrogate fits and obtained a time constant estimate for each neuron together with an uncertainty around this value ( Fig 4D ) that captured the statistical variability of the estimator (e.g., represented by the log-variance of the estimator).<anchor xml:id="a90"/></p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a91"/>To systematically aggregate the unequally informative neurons, we used a quasi-Bayesian method that accounts for the bias and uncertainty in the time constant estimation for each neuron ( Fig 4B , Methods). Neurons with high uncertainty (low SNR estimate) and relatively weak evidence about the network’s time constant, automatically counted for less contribution. Hence, we did not apply arbitrary criteria to discard neurons with weak autocorrelations, low firing rates or very long timescales, and were able to utilize data from all neurons.<anchor xml:id="a92"/> <anchor xml:id="a93"/>We then integrated the evidence from multiple neurons assuming that each estimated time constant per neuron is a noisy version of a single shared network time constant per hemisphere<anchor xml:id="a94"/> ( Fig 4E , Methods). <anchor xml:id="a95"/>The extracted network time constants were 82 ms (66 ms, 99 ms) for the left ACx and 126 ms (113 ms, 138 ms) for the right ACx (mean, (95% credible interval)).<anchor xml:id="a96"/> <anchor xml:id="a97"/>We found that the time constant of the right ACx network was significantly longer (Bayes factor = 0.002, 1 posterior for all neurons compared to a different posterior for each hemisphere).<anchor xml:id="a98"/> Our results suggest that differences in the recurrent connectivity in superficial layers of the auditory cortices translate into differences in time constants that might support lateralized computation of auditory stimuli.</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a99"/>Our quasi-Bayesian posterior over time constants were consistent with a simple robust average that discarded time constants longer than 300 ms or shorter than 10 ms: 106.1 ms ( n = 13, SEM = 4.03) for the left and 118.8 ms ( n = 14, SEM = 3.71) for the right ACx.<anchor xml:id="a100"/> <anchor xml:id="a101"/>It is also consistent with the median values, 192.9 ms ( n = 24) for the left and 250.3 ms ( n = 27) for the right ACx.<anchor xml:id="a102"/> Note that the medians are biased, since the outliers are not symmetrically distributed, being bounded by 0 ms from below.<anchor xml:id="a103"/></p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a104"/>The baseline firing rate of neurons from the right hemisphere tended to be higher.<anchor xml:id="a105"/> <anchor xml:id="a106"/>However, weighted linear regression between firing rate and time constant or log-time constant resulted in low r^2 values (0.0167 and 0.0001), and the hemispheric time constant difference explained by the firing rate difference is 7.03 ms, less than ⅕ of the difference.<anchor xml:id="a107"/> Hence, we rule out that the network time constant difference is due to firing rate differences in the data.<anchor xml:id="a108"/></p>
        <p>Discussion</p>
        <p>Rodent studies of the last several decades have demonstrated that there are evolutionarily conserved mechanisms of vocalization processing. Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence supports the role of the left ACx in the perception of conspecific vocalizations [ 6 , 20 , 21 ] and detecting local features in auditory signals, whereas the right ACx specializes in global features [ 6 , 7 ]. <anchor xml:id="a109"/>Moreover, these processing asymmetries between the auditory cortices were associated with lateralized circuit motifs [ 6 ].<anchor xml:id="a110"/> <anchor xml:id="a111"/>In this study, we show a novel neural mechanism whereby hemispheric differences in recurrent connectivity in superficial layers of the ACx translate into distinct temporal integration time windows.<anchor xml:id="a112"/> We showed that the synaptic organization and network dynamics consistently exhibit lateralization. Using LSPS, we compared the organization and strength of excitatory pathways in the left and right ACx across all cortical layers. For each auditory cortex, we combined the data across cells by building input–output maps. We found significantly stronger intralaminar and interlaminar connectivity between cells in the superficial layers in the right ACx than in the left, suggesting stronger recurrent loops ( Fig 2 ). Moreover, we showed that this enhanced recurrent connectivity in the right ACx leads to stronger recurrent network activity in vitro ( Fig 3 ). <anchor xml:id="a113"/>Stronger recurrent activity in the right ACx suggests a capacity for enhanced echoic memory: holding a brief memory of auditory signals. This feature would be advantageous to extract auditory information at slower temporal timescales, such as prosody and intonation.<anchor xml:id="a114"/></p>
        <p>Recurrent connectivity and their positive feedback have long been conjectured to play a key role in persistent neural information processing by lengthening the temporal extent of information representation [ 12 , 22 , 23 ]. <anchor xml:id="a115"/>Although there has been a bevy of theories and computational models [ 24 – 27 ], only indirect evidence exists correlating recurrent anatomical structure with observed persistent activity or longer time constants. Previous work has shown that timescales extracted from single neurons’ activity were related to cortical network organization in the primate visual processing hierarchy [ 28 ], and to the integration of signals in tasks such as working memory [ 29 ], reward guided choice [ 30 , 31 ], and free choice [ 32 ]. But there has not been a comparison of the naturally existing recurrent excitatory synaptic circuits and the corresponding network time constants within the same biological model system.<anchor xml:id="a116"/> <anchor xml:id="a117"/>In this work, we were able to exploit the lateralized recurrent circuit architecture of the ACx to make the desired direct comparison.<anchor xml:id="a118"/> The theory suggests that more excitatory recurrent feedback within the superficial layers of the right ACx should give rise to longer network time constant reflected in the neural activity. <anchor xml:id="a119"/>These differences in recurrent connectivity should impact the temporal structure of both evoked and spontaneous activities [ 33 , 34 ]; however, it is easier to interpret the neural dynamics in the absence of stimulus drive because stimulus dynamics influence the measured time constants.<anchor xml:id="a120"/> To test the hypothesis, we performed cell-attached recordings in superficial layers of the left and right ACx in awake mice and studied the autocorrelogram of the spontaneous neural activity. <anchor xml:id="a121"/>Consistent with the connectivity results, <anchor xml:id="a122"/>our statistical inference showed that the superficial layer network of the right ACx exhibits an approximately 50% longer network time constant relative to the left<anchor xml:id="a123"/>.<anchor xml:id="a124"/> <anchor xml:id="a125"/>To the best of our knowledge, this is the first explicit evidence that excitatory synaptic feedback predicts the spontaneous network dynamics that utilize the natural consistent variations provided by lateralization.<anchor xml:id="a126"/></p>
        <p>The consensus from decades of human language studies has been that speech decoding is carried out bilaterally with each hemisphere optimized for specific functions. <anchor xml:id="a127"/>Activity in the left STG has been consistently associated with processing of formant transitions, and perception of speech content is affected by degradation of temporal information; whereas activity in the right STG is associated with processing of intonation contours and is affected by degradation of spectral information [ 1 , 35 ]. However, the underlying neural mechanisms have remained controversial and difficult to prove in humans.<anchor xml:id="a128"/> One proposed mechanism that could subserve lateralized processing is neuronal ensembles in each hemisphere with different integration time constants: Neurons in the left ACx could preferentially integrate information on shorter timescales, and neurons in the right ACx could preferentially integrate information on longer timescales [ 4 ]. <anchor xml:id="a129"/>Our results support this simultaneous multiscale temporal analysis.<anchor xml:id="a130"/> <anchor xml:id="a131"/>Mouse vocalizations are composed of syllables (i.e., a sound unit separated from other sound units by silence [ 36 ]), which themselves contain 1 or several pitch trajectories.<anchor xml:id="a132"/> <anchor xml:id="a133"/>The duration of individual pitch trajectories within a syllable emitted by adult male mice can range from 30 to 90 ms [ 37 , 38 ].<anchor xml:id="a134"/> This range of durations is in line with the distribution of integration time constants we observed in the left ACx ( Fig 4E ). <anchor xml:id="a135"/>On the other hand, the right ACx’s time constants were consistent with intersyllabic intervals in mouse vocalizations (140 ms on average; [ 39 ]).<anchor xml:id="a136"/> <anchor xml:id="a137"/>These hemispheric differences in processing timescales suggest that the left and right ACx are simultaneously processing segmental and suprasegmental information, respectively, and thereby extracting different acoustic cues from the same signal<anchor xml:id="a138"/> [ 4 ].<anchor xml:id="a139"/> <anchor xml:id="a140"/>While the results of our study support asymmetries in temporal integration, our previous work suggests that this is not the only neural mechanism underlying lateralized auditory processing.<anchor xml:id="a141"/> There are hemispheric differences in the tonotopic organization of auditory cortical circuits and sensitivity to the direction of frequency sweeps, which suggest that there are also lateralized specializations for spectral processing<anchor xml:id="a142"/> [ 6 ]. Overall, the emerging evidence is that there are neural specializations for division labor in both the temporal and spectral domain. In future studies, we plan to use molecular tools to manipulate neural activity in a layer-specific manner to examine how modulating the activity of excitatory networks impacts time constants.</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a143"/>Inhibitory mechanisms have also been proposed to impact network time constants. A recent computational study postulated that the differences in electrophysiological properties between excitatory and inhibitory neurons, as well as differences in the balance between excitation and inhibition, could play a role in hierarchical timescale<anchor xml:id="a144"/> [ 40 ]. <anchor xml:id="a145"/>Moreover, we have previously reported that inhibitory neuronal populations have lateralized connectivity [ 41 ]. In particular, parvalbumin positive (PV+) interneurons in superficial layers of the right ACx can receive excitatory input from deep layers, whereas in the left ACx, they only receive input from superficial layers.<anchor xml:id="a146"/> This suggests that excitatory input from deep layers in the right ACx could, in principle, modulate the gain of inhibitory PV interneurons in superficial layers. A detailed investigation of lateralized inhibitory mechanisms on network time constants will be conducted in future studies.</p>
        <p>As the list of circuit asymmetries grows in the ACx, it will be important to consider how they arise. Asymmetries in genetic programs that guide circuit assembly during development as well as hearing experience are very likely sources of lateralized specializations. These forces can influence the asymmetric formation of both excitatory and inhibitory networks [ 41 ]. <anchor xml:id="a147"/>The observation of greater recurrent connectivity in the right ACx potentially suggests a lower rate of pruning of synaptic contacts during the critical period compared to the left ACx. But it is unclear how layer-specificity would be achieved.<anchor xml:id="a148"/> In future studies, we plan to dissect cellular and molecular mechanisms of enhanced recurrent connectivity in the right ACx. <anchor xml:id="a149"/>Although the results from this study were from an animal model, they support prevailing findings from the human literature, provide detailed neural mechanisms, and therefore can potentially offer insight for investigations in humans<anchor xml:id="a150"/> [ 42 ].<anchor xml:id="a151"/></p>
        <p>Methods</p>
        <p>Slice preparation and electrophysiology</p>
        <p>CBA/J male mice aged P28-51 were used in accordance with the National Institute of Health guidelines, as approved by the City College of New York Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Animals were anesthetized and decapitated, and the brains were transferred to a chilled cutting solution composed of (in mM): 110 choline chloride, 25 NaHCO 3 , 25 D-glucose, 11.6 sodium ascorbate, 7 MgCl 2 , 3.1 sodium pyruvate, 2.5 KCl, 1.25 NaH 2 PO 4 , and 0.5 CaCl 2 . We made horizontal slices to map synaptic connectivity along the anterior-posterior axis of the brain where tonotopy is represented in the ACx [ 43 ]. We sliced using a 15-degree angle between the blade and the medial-lateral axis so that apical dendrites were parallel to the slice in the ACx. Slices were 300-μm thick and were transferred to artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) containing (in mM): 127 NaCl, 25 NaHCO 3 , 25 D-glucose, 2.5 KCl, 1 MgCl 2 , 2 CaCl 2 , and 1.25 NaH 2 PO 4 , aerated with 95% O 2 5% CO 2 . The slices were incubated at 34°C for 20 to 30 minutes and then kept at room temperature during the experiments. Excitatory neurons located &gt;50 μm below the surface of the slice were visualized using infrared gradient contrast optics and patched with electrodes (6 to 7 MOhm) containing the following intracellular solution (in mM) 128 K-methylsulfate, 4 MgCl, 10 HEPES, 1 EGTA, 4 NaATP, 0.4 NaGTP, 10 Na-phosphocreatine. The pH of the intracellular solution was adjusted to 7.25 and the osmolarity was 300 mOsm. Whole-cell recordings were made using a Multiclamp 700A amplifier (Axon Instruments, Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, California, United States of America). Excitatory synaptic currents were measured at a holding potential of –70 mV. We used the custom software package ephus ([ 44 ] http://www.ephus.org ) for instrument control and acquisition written in MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, Massachusetts, USA).</p>
        <p>Analysis of IV/FI data</p>
        <p>Patched neurons were injected with 11 current pulses (0.5 pA steps) to compute current–voltage relationships (I/V) and frequency–current (F-I) curves. Change in membrane potential for each current step was calculated and added to the resting membrane potential of the cell to compute the I/V relationship. These values were averages across all cells in a population. Responses for the I/V relationships were only up to the first current step that induced spiking in the cell. Firing rate for each current step was also averaged across all cells in a population to calculate F-I curves.</p>
        <p>LSPS by glutamate uncaging</p>
        <p>The ACSF for uncaging was supplemented with (in mM): 0.2 nitroindolinyl (NI)-caged glutamate (Tocris), 0.005 CPP (Tocris), and a final concentration of 4 CaCl 2 and 4 MgCl 2 . For focal photolysis using UV flash to activate the caged glutamate compound, we used a 1 ms light stimulus consisting of 100 pulses from a pulsed UV laser (wavelength, 355 nm with a repetition rate of 100 kHz; DPSS Lasers, Santa Clara, California, USA). These uncaging conditions have been shown to prevent polysynaptic activity [ 8 ]; therefore, the synaptic connectivity data shown is monosynaptic. The grid to stimulate the ACx had 16 × 16 uncaging spots with 75 μm spacing, which resulted in a mapping region of 1.125 × 1.125 mm. <anchor xml:id="a152"/>To avoid revisiting the vicinity of sites recently stimulated, we used a shifting-X pattern that was rotated and/or transposed between map iterations.<anchor xml:id="a153"/> Each stimulus trial contained a test pulse to measure electrophysiological parameters, and UV flashes were presented every 1 s. The stimulus grid was consistently aligned for each cell recorded as described previously [ 9 ]. Briefly, the x axis of the grid was centered on the soma and the y axis was aligned with the second row of the grid placed on the L1/2 border. In previous studies, we confirmed that our slice recordings were performed in A1 (primary ACx) using retrograde tracer DiI and glutamate uncaging in the MGBv (see supplementary figures in [ 9 ]).</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a154"/>About 10% of all patched neurons across all layers were presumptive inhibitory cells as evidenced by membrane capacitance &lt;100 pF and high levels of spontaneous synaptic input. These were excluded from the data set. Cells with resting Vm &gt; −50 mV, those that exhibited spontaneous repetitive firing or whose passive membrane properties fluctuated significantly over the course of data collection were also excluded.<anchor xml:id="a155"/></p>
        <p>Disinhibition experiments</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a156"/>For experiments comparing network events in vitro, we used a 2:1 ratio of CaCl 2 and MgCl 2 , did not block NMDA receptors with CPP, and used 1 to 5 μm of SR95531 (Sigma) to block GABA A receptors.<anchor xml:id="a157"/> <anchor xml:id="a158"/>Slices from the left and right ACx were collected from the same animals in these experiments to directly compare the impact of disinhibition.<anchor xml:id="a159"/> We used an 8 × 16 uncaging grid (75 μm spacing) centered on the cell body. Recordings were performed in the cell-attached configuration. All other photostimulation parameters were the same as described above.</p>
        <p>Analysis of LSPS data</p>
        <p>Analysis was conducted as described previously [ 9 ]. <anchor xml:id="a160"/>Briefly, the mean current amplitude of synaptic events was calculated in the 50-ms epoch after the direct response time window (7.5 ms after UV stimulus).<anchor xml:id="a161"/> Direct responses triggered by stimulation around somata were excluded in our analyses. We recorded 2 to 4 maps for each cell to create an average input map, and these average maps were used for group averages and for all analyses. Like the individual maps, population maps were aligned with respect to the soma on the x axis and the L1/L2 boundary on the y axis. Pixels in the population maps where direct responses were recorded in &gt;50% of cells, i.e., areas proximal to the cell body, were excluded from the analysis.</p>
        <p>To create input–output functions from the map data, average maps for each cell were summed over either the antero-posterior axis or the laminar axis to yield 1 × 16 vectors of input strength versus location. These vectors were then binned according to laminar or antero-posterior location, respectively, and combined to yield n × 16 or 16 × n matrices relating presynaptic input to postsynaptic soma location (“output”), where n = number of bins as reported in the individual figure legends. The matrices were 2D-interpolated for display purposes.</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a162"/>To analyze network events in disinhibition experiments, we calculated the number of action potentials evoked per stimulation site and the duration of network events.<anchor xml:id="a163"/> All network events began with the firing of an action potential, and the event duration was calculated as the return of the membrane potential back to the mean of the pre-stimulus baseline period (±1.5 std).</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a164"/>Statistical significance between hemispheres for population map values was computed pixel-by-pixel, with the average map value for each cell being considered a single data point.<anchor xml:id="a165"/> <anchor xml:id="a166"/>Comparisons were made via 2-tailed, unpaired t tests.<anchor xml:id="a167"/> <anchor xml:id="a168"/>For comparison, randomized data sets were generated by pooling all maps from both hemispheres for each layer and drawing maps at random to give 2 pools with the same n as the original data sets.<anchor xml:id="a169"/></p>
        <p>In vivo recordings</p>
        <p>Subjects and surgery</p>
        <p>A total of 14 CBA/J mice, aged P30-60, were used in accordance with the National Institute of Health guidelines, as approved by the City College of New York Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. We administered ketamine (75 mg kg −1 )/medetomidine (0.5 mg kg −1 ) before a stereotactic surgery was performed to allow for awake recordings. The scalp from the entire top of the skull was removed to reveal bregma and lambda, barely exposing the muscle of the temporal bone. A metal plate was bound to the exposed bone via 2 layers of Metabond and a single layer of Vitribond, followed by a covering of dental cement. Following administration of ketamine (75 mg kg −1 )/medetomidine (0.5 mg kg −1 ), mice were head-fixed on a freely rotating wheel inside a soundproof chamber. We made a craniotomy and durotomy over the auditory cortex, centered at 2.5 mm posterior and 4 mm lateral to bregma. Craniotomies were 0.1 to 0.2 mm in diameter to provide stability to our recordings. Mice were allowed at least 24 hours post-surgery to recover before any recording sessions began.</p>
        <p>Electrophysiology</p>
        <p>We recorded from the left and right ACx of awake mice. During the recording sessions, we targeted neurons in superficial layers (L2/3, L4; 150 to 500 μm below cortical surface) using the standard blind cell-attached technique [ 45 ]. <anchor xml:id="a170"/>One hemisphere was recorded per animal.<anchor xml:id="a171"/> Electrodes were pulled from a glass borosilicate filament and filled with either physiological saline (0.9% NaCl) or intracellular solution ((in mM) 128 K-methylsulfate, 4 MgCl, 10 HEPES, 1 EGTA, 4 NaATP, 0.3 NaGTP, 10 Na-phos-phocreatine) and had resistances between 4 to 8 MOhms. Recordings were obtained using Axopatch 200B (Axon Instruments) and custom electrophysiological data acquisition software (exper, by Tomas Hromadka) written in MATLAB (Mathworks). We detected the presence of cells in the cortex based on changes in pipette resistance.</p>
        <p>A soundproof chamber was used to conduct all recordings. We used a custom-built real-time Linux system (200 kHz sampling rate) driving a high-end Lynx L22 audio card (Lynx Studio Technology, Newport Beach, California, USA) with an ED1 electrostatic speaker (Tucker-Davis Technologies, Alachua, Florida, USA) in free-field configuration (speaker located 6 inches lateral to, and facing, the contralateral ear). The stimuli were generated with custom MATLAB scripts. <anchor xml:id="a172"/>To compute tuning curves of our cells’ best frequency, we used a set of pure tones that lasted 100 ms long of 16 different frequencies at 3 intensity levels (20dB, 50dB, and 80dB). Tuning curves and timing of tone-evoked responses (40 to 50 ms from stimulus presentation) were used to ensure that the position of our recordings were within the primary ACx.<anchor xml:id="a173"/></p>
        <p>Time constant posterior distributions</p>
        <p>Link between recurrent anatomy and time constant</p>
        <p>The causal connection between recurrent connectivity and time constant is based on the intuitive fact that excitatory feedback increases time constant in the first-order approximation of a system. In particular, consider a first-order linear dynamical system that represents the neural population with no feedback with time constant τ : d x d t = − 1 τ · x + η , where x ( t ) represents the 1D subspace of the population activity and η denotes white noise representing noise and input drive. The autocorrelation of this system has the form: acf ( l a g ) = a e − | l a g | τ . Since we fit the autocorrelation function with a single τ, it would correspond to the dominant time constant expressed in the neuron’s activity. We assume that the neural autocorrelation directly reflects the time constant of the population (i.e., the network time constant). Now if there is positive feedback in the first-order linear system, we get: d x d t = − 1 τ · x + g · x + η , where 0&lt; g &lt;1/τ is a positive constant that captures the strength of the feedback of the population. In this simplified form, we can see that the effective time constant increases as a function of g , since d x d t = − ( 1 τ − g ) · x + η = − 1 τ eff · x + η , where the effective time constant with the recurrence is τ e f f = τ 1   − τ · g &gt; τ . Hence, under these first-order approximations, excitatory feedback is expected to increase the time constant of spontaneous activity.</p>
        <p>Autocorrelation and single neuron time constant estimation</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a174"/>For this analysis, we used inter-trial interval recordings in which no auditory stimulus was played, and we were blind to the hemispheric identity of the data.<anchor xml:id="a175"/> Each inter-trial interval started at least 100 ms after the end of the stimulus and of duration 1,540 ms. <anchor xml:id="a176"/>We binned the recordings in Δ = 20 ms bins and computed the unbiased autocorrelation function:<anchor xml:id="a177"/></p>
        <p>acf ^ ( l ) = 1 N trial ∑ n = 1 N trial 1 T n − l + 1 ∑ t = 1 T n x n ( t ) x n ( t − l ) ,</p>
        <p>where l denotes the l -th binned lag, x n ( t ) is the binned spontaneous spike trains for trial n , T n is the number of time bins for the corresponding trial, and N trial is the total number of trials.</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a178"/>For each neuron, we performed nonlinear least squares fits to the estimated autocorrelation functions, exponential decays of the form<anchor xml:id="a179"/></p>
        <p>C ( l ) = a · e − l τ ^ + b   (1)</p>
        <p>with multiple initializations to extract the values of the parameters τ ^ and a . We used the autocorrelation function starting from 20 ms up to 760 ms binned at 20 ms. <anchor xml:id="a180"/>Disregarding the first 20 ms of the autocorrelation removes the dominant very short time constant component in the data.<anchor xml:id="a181"/> We assumed the process is stationary and fixed the value of b to ( λΔ ) 2 where λ is the mean firing rate. We then estimated the bias and variance of the estimated time constant τ ^ for each neuron using the DG model.</p>
        <p>Dichotomized Gaussian model</p>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a182"/>The DG model is a spiking generative model that can capture correlation structures in spiking neural data [ 46 ].<anchor xml:id="a183"/> Sample (binarized) spike trains X ( t ) were generated by thresholding samples of a latent multivariate Gaussian time series V ( t )</p>
        <p>X ( t ) = 1 iff V ( t ) &gt; 0 with V ∼ N ( γ , Σ )</p>
        <p>with Σ ( t , t ) = 1 without loss of generality. Assuming the process is stationary, γ is a constant and the time covariance matrix Σ ( t , s ) = Σ ( t − s ) is only a function of the lag between time points. The latent parameters γ and Σ were obtained from the spiking rate λ per bin and autocorrelation C using</p>
        <p>γ = Φ − 1 ( λ )</p>
        <p>C ( t − s ) − Φ 2 ( λ , λ , Σ ( t − s ) ) = 0 ,</p>
        <p>where Φ and Φ 2 denote the cumulative distribution of the standard normal and the bivariate normal distributions with given correlation [ 46 ]. Since we use the exponential decay form for the autocorrelation, Σ ( t − s ) is monotonically decaying as function of the lag ( t − s ), there is a unique solution for γ constrained to be in the range (−1, 1). In this way, the DG model can capture specific spiking rates and temporal autocorrelations in the data.<anchor xml:id="a184"/></p>
        <p>Bias and variance estimation</p>
        <p>For each neuron, we generated 400 sets of surrogate data replicating the recording conditions and using the DG model with the exponential autocorrelation of Eq ( 1 ) and the extracted parameters τ ^ and a . We repeated the estimation procedure for each set and obtained a set of surrogate time constants { τ 1 D G , τ 2 D G , … , τ 400 D G } . We assumed these values are observations from a log-normal distribution l o g ( τ i D G ) ∼ Ν ( l o g ( τ ^ ) + b i a s , σ 2 ) and <anchor xml:id="a185"/>we estimated their mean and variance by maximum likelihood<anchor xml:id="a186"/>. The difference between the estimated mean E [ log ( τ D G ) ] and log ( τ ^ ) is an estimate of the bias of our estimator in our procedure and σ 2 represents the uncertainty of the estimate.</p>
        <p>Evidence integration</p>
        <p>We assumed that the bias corrected time constants l o g ( τ ^ i u ) = l o g ( τ ^ i ) − b i a s i obtained from the neurons in each hemisphere come from a log-normal distribution l o g ( τ ^ i u ) ∼ Ν ( l o g ( τ ) , σ i 2 ) with τ the network’s time constant and σ i 2 the variance of log time constant estimated for each neuron. Assuming a uniform prior for τ , we integrate the evidence from the observations of each hemisphere into the posterior distributions by computing P ( τ | { τ i } ) ∝ ∏ i P ( τ i | τ , σ i 2 ) .</p>
        <p>Supporting information</p>
        <p>S1 Fig. No hemispheric differences in measured membrane properties. Whole-cell recordings were performed in superficial layers (L2-4) of the left and right ACx at room temperature (see Methods for experimental details). A series of current steps were injected to test the subthreshold and suprathreshold membrane properties of excitatory neurons. Left panel shows the relationship between current injected and evoked membrane response measured at steady state. Right panel is the relationship between current injected and firing rate, also measured at steady state. The data underlying all the plots in this figure are included in S1 Data .</p>
        <p>(TIF)</p>
        <p>Click here for additional data file. (1.3MB, tif)</p>
        <p>S1 Data. Excel spreadsheets containing the quantitative data for each experiment as described in the results and figure legends. (XLSX)</p>
        <p>Click here for additional data file. (129KB, xlsx)</p>
        <p>S1 File. The 45 figures in this document contain data from all the cells recorded in vivo and analyzed in Fig 4 . The blue raster panels correspond to the data recorded and the pink to the DG model. Data from the left ACx have files named Calyx and the right ACx Thelo.</p>
        <p>(PDF)</p>
        <p>Click here for additional data file. (2MB, pdf)</p>
        <p>Abbreviations</p>
        <p>ACSF   artificial cerebrospinal fluid</p>
        <p>ACx   auditory cortex</p>
        <p>DG   dichotomized Gaussian</p>
        <p>LSPS   laser scanning photostimulation</p>
        <p>SNR   signal-to-noise-ratio</p>
        <p>STG   superior temporal gyrus</p>
        <p>Data Availability</p>
        <p>All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.</p>
        <p>Funding Statement</p>
        <p>HVO is funded by NSF IOS-1652774 and NIH 1R21DC019737-01. IMP is funded by NSF IIS-1845836 and NIH UF1-NS115779 The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.<anchor xml:id="a187"/></p>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
