Supplementary Figure 13: Frequency tuning does not predict group-level variation in song selectivity.
From: Emergent tuning for learned vocalizations in auditory cortex
a, Frequency power spectra (median ± IQR) of the ZF (orange), LF (gray), and BF (blue) song stimuli (n = 5 songs each). b, Frequency response areas and curves (FRC, mean across levels) from two neurons with tuning features that could confer song selectivity. A neuron with a low best frequency (Bf) and/or narrow bandwidth (Bw) could be expected to respond selectively to tonal LF syllables, while a neuron with a high Bf and/or wide Bw could be expected to respond selectively to broadband ZF and BF syllables. c, Best frequency did not explain variation in song selectivity. The Bf distributions of pupil groups were not different in any of the three comparisons (ANOVAs with bird identity as a nested covariation, all P ≥ 0.28) and most partial correlations were not significant: top, ZF versus LF syllables (zfZF: P = 0.99, n = 778 neurons; lfLF: P = 0.90, n = 597 neurons); middle, ZF versus BF (zfZF: r = 0.08, P = 0.04, n = 751 neurons; zfBF: P = 0.70, n = 523 neurons); and bottom, LF versus BF (lfLF: P = 0.29, n = 589 neurons; lfBF: P = 0.63, n = 369 neurons). d, Tuning bandwidth did not explain group differences in song selectivity. While Bw was positively correlated with selectivity for ZF versus LF syllables (top, zfZF: partial r = 0.21, P = 5.7×10-9; lfLF: partial r = 0.09, P = 0.029) and negatively correlated with selectivity for LF versus BF syllables (bottom, lfLF: partial r = -0.20, P = 1.0×10-6; lfBF: partial r = -0.23, P = 9.7×10-6), there were no significant differences in the distributions of Bw between groups (ANOVAs with bird identity as a nested covariate, all P ≥ 0.11). Sample sizes are the same as in c. All regressions included bird identity as a categorical covariate.
