Responses of visual cortical neurons in cats to local stimulation of the receptive field center of varied intensity

1983 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-273
Author(s):  
V. G. Marchenko
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Cortical Neurons ◽  
Field Center ◽  
Varied Intensity ◽  
Visual Cortical ◽  
Receptive Field Center ◽  
Local Stimulation ◽  
Stimulation Of

Interaction between center and surround in rabbit retinal ganglion cells

1995 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 1547-1567 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. K. Merwine ◽  
F. R. Amthor ◽  
N. M. Grzywacz
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Inhibitory Effect ◽  
Sine Wave ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
Field Center ◽  
Response Versus ◽  
Receptive Field Center ◽  
Stimulation Of

1. The interaction between the center and surround mechanisms of a variety of rabbit retinal ganglion cell classes was examined in extracellular single-unit recordings in an isolated eyecup preparation. Ganglion cell classes studied included on and off brisk sustained and transient, on and off sluggish sustained and transient, on-off and on directionally selective, orientationally selective, and large field units. The surround effects observed were qualitatively similar in all these ganglion cell classes. 2. The average response-versus-contrast functions for stimuli within the ganglion cells' receptive-field centers were relatively linear between threshold and saturation for all ganglion cell classes examined. The major effect of surround stimulation on the center response-versus-contrast function was a reduction in the slope of the linear portion of the curve, rather than a downward, parallel shift of the function. Stimulation of the surround had no systematically significant effect on the contrast threshold for the center spot, and, when it did have a significant effect, it sometimes decreased, rather than increased the magnitude of threshold. 3. Step changes in surround contrast were most effective when they were made simultaneously with step changes in the center; surround inhibition decreased significantly when it preceded stimulation of the center by > 100 ms and was generally ineffective when preceding the center by > 500 ms. The decrease in the inhibitory effect of surround stimulation was a monotonic function of delay between 0 and 500 ms. 4. Stimulation of the surround by step changes in the contrast of a sine-wave grating annulus produced qualitatively similar results to those obtained for pure luminance modulations. This suggests that the surround mechanism observed in these experiments was not due to pure luminance adaptation within the surround. The inhibitory effect of sine-wave gratings in the surround decreased monotonically as a function of spatial frequency. 5. Stimulation with a spot and an annulus that were both entirely within the ganglion cell's excitatory receptive-field center typically yielded nonadditive summation at contrasts whose linear sum of responses were below saturation. The effect of an annulus within the receptive-field center on responses elicited by a central spot quantitatively resembled the inhibition elicited from annuli in the inhibitory surround, after the excitatory center response due to the annulus was taken into account. These results suggest that the inhibiton elicited from the surrounds of the ganglion cells in these experiments extended into their receptive-field centers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Response dynamics and receptive-field organization of catfish amacrine cells

1992 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 430-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Sakai ◽  
K. Naka
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
White Noise ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Response Dynamics ◽  
Field Center ◽  
Mean Luminance ◽  
Nonlinear Components ◽  
Receptive Field Center ◽  
Dc Potentials

1. We have applied Wiener analysis to a study of response dynamics of N (sustained) and C (transient) amacrine cells. Stimuli were a spot and an annulus of light, the luminance of which was modulated by two independent white-noise signals. First- and second-order Wiener kernels were computed for each spot and annulus input. The analysis allowed us to separate a modulation response into its linear and nonlinear components, and into responses generated by a receptive-field center and its surround. 2. Organization of the receptive field of N amacrine cells consists of both linear and nonlinear components. The receptive field of linear components was center-surround concentric and opposite in polarity, whereas that of second-order nonlinear components was monotonic. 3. In NA (center-depolarizing) amacrine cells, the membrane DC potentials brought about by the mean luminance of a white-noise spot or a steady spot were depolarizations, whereas those brought about by the mean luminance of a white-noise annulus or a steady annulus were hyperpolarizations. In NB (center-hyperpolarizing) amacrine cells, this relationship was reversed. If both receptive-field center and surround were stimulated by a spot and annulus, membrane DC potentials became close to the dark level and the amplitude of modulation responses became larger. 4. The linear responses of a receptive-field center of an N amacrine cell, measured in terms of the first-order Wiener kernel, were facilitated if the surround was stimulated simultaneously. The amplitude of the kernel became larger, and its peak response time became shorter. The same facilitation occurred in the linear responses of a receptive-field surround if the center was stimulated simultaneously. 5. The second-order nonlinear responses were not usually generated in N amacrine cells if the stimulus was either a white-noise spot or a white-noise annulus alone. Significant second-order nonlinearity appeared if the other region of the receptive field was also stimulated. 6. Membrane DC potentials of C amacrine cells remained at the dark level with either a white-noise spot or a white-noise annulus. The cell responded only to modulations. 7. The major characteristics of center and surround responses of C amacrine cells could be approximated by second-order Wiener kernels of the same structure. The receptive field of second-order nonlinear components of C amacrine cells was monotonic.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Microcircuitry related to the receptive field center of the on-beta ganglion cell

1991 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Cohen ◽  
P. Sterling
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Beta Cell ◽  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Beta Cells ◽  
Weighting Function ◽  
Cell Array ◽  
Dendritic Field ◽  
Field Center ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Receptive Field Center

1. We have investigated the anatomic basis for the Gaussian-like receptive field center of the on-beta ("X") ganglion cell in the area centralis of cat retina. Three adjacent on-beta cells were reconstructed from electron micrographs of 279 serial sections cut vertically through a patch of retina at approximately 1 degree eccentricity. 2. All the bipolar synapses on these cells were identified, and about one-half of these were traced to type b1 bipolar cells, which formed a regular array in the plane of the retina. 3. On average, seven b1 cells contributed to a beta cell: bipolar axons near the middle of the beta dendritic field tended to give many contacts (12-33 contacts); axons near the edge of the field tended to give few contacts (3-4 contacts). 4. Each b1 cell collected from four to seven cones, and the mean number of cones converging through the b1 array to a beta cell was 30. 5. Assuming equal effectiveness for all b1----beta cell synapses, a spatial weighting function was derived from these results. The mean radius of this function at 1/e amplitude for three beta cells was 18.0 +/- 1.1 (SD) microns. This is considerably narrower than the corresponding measurements of the beta cell receptive field center (28 +/- 3 microns) at this eccentricity. 6. It is concluded, in agreement with previous work, that all cones encompassed by the beta cell's dendritic field and those slightly beyond it connect directly to the beta cell via the b1 bipolar cell array. However, the center of the beta cell receptive field is still broader by approximately 60%. This suggests that pooling of cone signals may occur at the level of the outer plexiform layer.

Excitatory amino acid receptor-mediated transmission in geniculocortical and intracortical pathways within visual cortex

1991 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 293-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. J. Larson-Prior ◽  
P. S. Ulinski ◽  
N. T. Slater
Keyword(s):  
Visual Cortex ◽  
Amino Acid ◽  
Cortical Neurons ◽  
Excitatory Amino Acid ◽  
Nmda Antagonist ◽  
Receptor Subtypes ◽  
Excitatory Amino Acid Receptor ◽  
Visual Cortical ◽  
Stimulation Of

1. A preparation of turtle (Chrysemys picta and Pseudemys scripta) brain in which the integrity of the intracortical and geniculocortical pathways in visual cortex are maintained in vitro has been used to differentiate the excitatory amino acid (EAA) receptor subtypes involved in geniculocortical and intracortical synapses. 2. Stimulation of the geniculocortical fibers at subcortical loci produces monosynaptic excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) in visual cortical neurons. These EPSPs are blocked by the broad-spectrum EAA receptor antagonist kynurenate (1-2 mM) and the non-N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist 6, 7-dinitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione (DNQX, 10 microM), but not by the NMDA antagonist D,L-2-amino-5-phosphonovalerate (D,L-AP-5, 100 microM). These results indicate that the geniculocortical EPSP is mediated by EAAs that access principally, if not exclusively, EAA receptors of the non-NMDA subtypes. 3. Stimulation of intracortical fibers evokes compound EPSPs that could be resolved into three components differing in latency to peak. The component with the shortest latency was not affected by any of the EAA-receptor antagonists tested. The second component, of intermediate latency, was blocked by kyurenate and DNQX but not by D,L-AP-5. The component of longest latency was blocked by kynurenate and D,L-AP-5, but not by DNQX. These results indicate that the compound intracortical EPSP is comprised of three pharmacologically distinct components that are mediated by an unknown receptor, by quisqualate/kainate, and by NMDA receptors, respectively. 4. Repetitive stimulation of intracortical pathways at 0.33 Hz produces a dramatic potentiation of the late, D,L-AP-5-sensitive component of the intracortical EPSP. 5. These experiments lead to a hypothesis about the subtypes of EAA receptors that are accessed by the geniculocortical and intracortical pathways within visual cortex.

Effects of bicuculline on receptive field center sensitivity of relay cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus

1989 ◽  
Vol 488 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 348-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas T. Norton ◽  
Robert N. Holdefer ◽  
Dwayne W. Godwin
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Lateral Geniculate Nucleus ◽  
Field Center ◽  
Lateral Geniculate ◽  
Receptive Field Center
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document