During recording, units’ STRFs and BFs were estimated. From the

set of 34 tone frequencies used in the DRCs (ΦΦ), tones in a “test” band of 7 frequencies (ΦtestΦtest), spanning half an octave above and half an octave below the unit’s BF, had levels drawn from a different distribution from those in the remaining “mask” frequency bands (ΦmaskΦmask). Nine different stimuli (Figure 7A) were presented five times each, randomly interleaved. Some units’ BFs lay in the 2–3 highest-frequency bands of the DRCs; for these units, the test band was reduced to a width of either 3/6 or 4/6 octaves. Results from these units were similar, and so results from all three cases were pooled. For all units, a linear STRF was calculated from the pooled data set, and individual nonlinearities were calculated for each stimulus condition. The responsive frequency range of each unit (ΦRFΦRF) was defined by which components Selleck Rapamycin of wfwf were significantly nonzero, via bootstrapping (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures). We then defined the overlap between ΦRFΦRF and test: equation(7) ∑fi∈ΦRF|wfi|∑fi∈Φ|wfi|where wfiwfi denotes the component of wfwf corresponding to frequency fifi. To model the effects

of stimulus statistics on neural gain, we extended a well-known class of gain normalization equations used in the visual system, which take the general form of Equation 2. As all gain values were computed relative to a reference curve (σref=8.7dBσref=8.7dB), we fixed a=1+bσrefn to constrain G(σref)=1G(σref)=1. To model the effects of varying both σL   and μL  , we fitted separate values for b   (and therefore for a  ) for each Talazoparib manufacturer mean level: equation(8) G(σL,μL)=a(μL)1+b(μL)σLnwhere a(μL)=1+b(μL)σrefn so that G(σref,μL)=1G(σref,μL)=1 for all

μL (as observed in the data); n is constant with respect to μL. The fit obtained was slightly better than if n was allowed to vary as a function of μL and b was kept constant with respect to μL. Following the empirical fitting of b(μL)b(μL) values, b   was parameterized using the form b(μL)=bmax(1−e−c(μL+k))b(μL)=bmax(1−e−c(μL+k)) to capture the saturation of b(μL)b(μL) at high μL. For the test/mask analysis, we fitted Equation 3 for units where most the test completely covered their responsive frequency range, assuming that σRF=σtestσRF=σtest, n   given from fitting Equation 2, and a   constrained by G(σref,σref)=1G(σref,σref)=1. As above, this gave slightly better fits than fixing bRF=btest=bbRF=btest=b and using separate exponents for σRFσRF and σglobalσglobal. The fitted parameters were used with Equation 3 to predict the gain for units where the test only partially covered ΦRFΦRF or lay outside of it. The local contrast in this region and the global contrast were then calculated via the weighted sums: equation(9) σRF2=1|ΦRF|∑f∈ΦRFσL2(f) equation(10) σglobal2=1|Φ|∑f∈ΦσL2(f)where σL(f)σL(f) is the contrast in frequency band f.