Fig. 7.

Temporal disruptions severely alter call representation by AI cells. A: quantitative comparison of responses of 3 example cells to locally time-reversed and natural calls. Results of utilizing the method depicted in Fig. 1B to analyze the responses of individual cells to the aggression call (cell MT005.005) or the food call (cells MT014.000 and MT015.001). Note that the durations of these 2 calls are different. In all cases, responses to the locally time-reversed call are compared with those to the natural call; 50% corresponds to chance performance. Values represent mean performance over bootstrapping iterations, and error bars represent SE. B: percentage of tested cells which failed to discriminate the disrupted call from the natural call at a level of 70% correct or above as a function of reversal segment length. Results for the food dispute call, which contained minimal FM, are separated from the results for the other call types. The points in each group were fit using a linear regression (food dispute call: R² = 0.69, P = 0.009; other calls: R² = 0.55, P = 0.005). Inset: histogram of best timescale for comparing call responses in the temporal disruption experiment. The best timescale for each cell corresponds to the timescale at which the highest total percent correct could be achieved for comparisons of natural and locally reversed calls across all reversal lengths. This represents the timescale at which each cell firing pattern is best differentiated; n = 37 cells. C: confusion matrix showing the average performance of a sample of AI neurons on the classification of food dispute calls that were temporally disrupted at short timescales as well as other natural calls in the same frequency range. The classification scheme was similar to that shown in Fig. 1A; n = 10 cells.