Inhibition of visual responses of single units in the cat superior colliculus by the introduction of a second visual stimulus

1973 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. 390-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Rizzolatti ◽  
Rosolino Camarda ◽  
Larry A. Grupp ◽  
Michele Pisa
1997 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 2834-2847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Kadunce ◽  
J. William Vaughan ◽  
Mark T. Wallace ◽  
Gyorgy Benedek ◽  
Barry E. Stein

Kadunce, Daniel C., J. William Vaughan, Mark T. Wallace, Gyorgy Benedek, and Barry E. Stein. Mechanisms of within- and cross-modality suppression in the superior colliculus. J. Neurophysiol. 78: 2834–2847, 1997. The present studies were initiated to explore the basis for the response suppression that occurs in cat superior colliculus (SC) neurons when two spatially disparate stimuli are presented simultaneously or in close temporal proximity to one another. Of specific interest was examining the possibility that suppressive regions border the receptive fields (RFs) of unimodal and multisensory SC neurons and, when activated, degrade the neuron's responses to excitatory stimuli. Both within- and cross-modality effects were examined. An example of the former is when a response to a visual stimulus within its RF is suppressed by a second visual stimulus outside the RF. An example of the latter is when the response to a visual stimulus within the visual RF is suppressed when a stimulus from a different modality (e.g., auditory) is presented outside its (i.e., auditory) RF. Suppressive regions were found bordering visual, auditory, and somatosensory RFs. Despite significant modality-specific differences in the incidence and effectiveness of these regions, they were generally quite potent regardless of the modality. In the vast majority (85%) of cases, responses to the excitatory stimulus were degraded by ≥50% by simultaneously stimulating the suppressive region. Contrary to expectations and previous speculations, the effects of activating these suppressive regions often were quite specific. Thus powerful within-modality suppression could be demonstrated in many multisensory neurons in which cross-modality suppression could not be generated. However, the converse was not true. If an extra-RF stimulus inhibited center responses to stimuli of a different modality, it also would suppress center responses to stimuli of its own modality. Thus when cross-modality suppression was demonstrated, it was always accompanied by within-modality suppression. These observations suggest that separate mechanisms underlie within- and cross-modality suppression in the SC. Because some modality-specific tectopetal structures contain neurons with suppressive regions bordering their RFs, the within-modality suppression observed in the SC simply may reflect interactions taking place at the level of one input channel. However, the presence of modality-specific suppression at the level of one input channel would have no effect on the excitation initiated via another input channel. Given the modality-specificity of tectopetal inputs, it appears that cross-modality interactions require the convergence of two or more modality-specific inputs onto the same SC neuron and that the expression of these interactions depends on the internal circuitry of the SC. This allows a cross-modality suppressive signal to be nonspecific and to degrade any and all of the neuron's excitatory inputs.


1976 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 766-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. H. Wurtz ◽  
C. W. Mohler

1. We have studied the visual enhancement effect in two areas of the cerebral cortex of monkeys. The response of the cells to a visual stimulus was determined both when the monkey used the visual stimulus as the target for a saccadic eye movement and when he did not. 2. In striate cortex cells with nonoriented, simple, complex, and hypercomplex receptive-field types were studied. Clear enhancement of the response to the appropriate visual stimulus was seldom seen when the monkey used the stimulus as a target for a saccade. In addition, any enhancement effect seen was nonselective; it occurred whether the monkey made a saccade to the receptive-field stimulus or some other stimulus at a point distant from the receptive field. The enhancement also occurred whether the monkey made a saccade to the stimulus or just released the bar when the stimulus dimmed. 3. This nonselective enhancement in striate cortex is in striking contrast to the selective enhancement of the visual response seen in the superior colliculus. The different characteristics of the enhancement in striate cortex and the observation of enhancement in the colliculus following ablation of striate cortex suggest that this cortical area is an unlikely source of the collicular enhancement. 4. These observations reinforce the distinction between striate cortex and superior colliculus. Striate cortex is an excellent analyzer of stimulus characteristics but a poor evaluator of stimulus significance. The superior colliculus is an excellent evaluator but a poor analyzer. 5. The area of frontal eye fields in which cells have clear visual responses has been better localized. Enhancement of the visual response of these cells also occurs and, at least for some cells, the response enhancement is selective. The response enhancement, like the visual properties of these frontal eye field cells, appears to be more closely related to the properties of superior colliculus cells than to striate cortex cells.


1978 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. E. Stein

1. The effects of cortical cooling on the responses of cells to visual, somatic, and acoustic stimuli were studied in the cat superior colliculus (SC). When the visual cortex was cooled, the responses of many visual cells of the SC were depressed or eliminated, but the activity of nonvisual cells remained unchanged. This response depression was found in visual cells located in both superficial and deep laminae and was most pronounced in neurons which were binocular and directionally selective. 2. Cooling somatic and/or auditory cortex had no effect on visual SC cells and, with few exceptions, did not alter the activity of somatic or acoustic cells either. 3. The specificity of visual cortex influences on visual responding in the SC was most apparent in multimodal cells. In trimodal cells, the simultaneous cooling of visual, somatic, and auditory cortex eliminated responses to visual stimuli, but did not affect responses to somatic or acoustic stimuli. Visual responses were returned to the precooling level in both unimodal and multimodal cells by cortical rewarming. 4. The present experiments indicate that despite the organizational parallels among visual, somatic, and acoustic cells of the cat SC, the influences they receive from cortex are non-equivalent. Cortical influences appear to play a more critical role in the responses of visual cells than in the responses of somatic and acoustic cells. These observations raise questions about the functional significance of nonvisual corticotectal systems.


Author(s):  
Caroline A. Miller ◽  
Laura L. Bruce

The first visual cortical axons arrive in the cat superior colliculus by the time of birth. Adultlike receptive fields develop slowly over several weeks following birth. The developing cortical axons go through a sequence of changes before acquiring their adultlike morphology and function. To determine how these axons interact with neurons in the colliculus, cortico-collicular axons were labeled with biocytin (an anterograde neuronal tracer) and studied with electron microscopy.Deeply anesthetized animals received 200-500 nl injections of biocytin (Sigma; 5% in phosphate buffer) in the lateral suprasylvian visual cortical area. After a 24 hr survival time, the animals were deeply anesthetized and perfused with 0.9% phosphate buffered saline followed by fixation with a solution of 1.25% glutaraldehyde and 1.0% paraformaldehyde in 0.1M phosphate buffer. The brain was sectioned transversely on a vibratome at 50 μm. The tissue was processed immediately to visualize the biocytin.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document