The spatial extent over which neurons in macaque striate cortex pool visual signals

2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 439-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
JONATHAN B. LEVITT ◽  
JENNIFER S. LUND

We recorded activity of single units in macaque monkey primary visual cortex (V1) to define the retinotopic extent of the visual inputs that drive or modulate V1 neuron responses in parafoveal and peripheral (calcarine) cortex. We used high-contrast drifting grating stimuli to define the extent of the area over which responses summate and the extent of the receptive-field surround. We found responses of most V1 cells to summate over 1 deg, with a suppressive surround typically twice that in diameter, though for some cells (even in parafoveal V1) surrounds exceeded 13 deg in diameter. Surprisingly, we found no significant laminar differences in these dimensions or in the strength of surround suppression. We found that surround suppression in most cells arises from both the ends and sides of the receptive field. Our measures indicate that the strongest modulatory input arises from regions immediately adjacent to the excitatory summation area. These physiological measures suggest that the high-contrast summation field of V1 neurons can be accounted for by the sum of lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) inputs offered to the local cortical column, with monosynaptic lateral connections within area V1 adding the larger dimensions of the low-contrast summation field and the near surround. Neither of these inputs suffice to explain the largest surrounds, which most likely derive from feedback from extrastriate visual areas.

2007 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRIS TAILBY ◽  
SAMUEL G. SOLOMON ◽  
JONATHAN W. PEIRCE ◽  
ANDREW B. METHA

The preferred stimulus size of a V1 neuron decreases with increases in stimulus contrast. It has been supposed that stimulus contrast is the primary determinant of such spatial summation in V1 cells, though the extent to which it depends on other stimulus attributes such as orientation and spatial frequency remains untested. We investigated this by recording from single cells in V1 of anaesthetized cats and monkeys, measuring size-tuning curves for high-contrast drifting gratings of optimal spatial configuration, and comparing these curves with those obtained at lower contrast or at sub-optimal orientations or spatial frequencies. For drifting gratings of optimal spatial configuration, lower contrasts produced less surround suppression resulting in increases in preferred size. High contrast gratings of sub-optimal spatial configuration produced more surround suppression than optimal low-contrast gratings, and as much or more surround suppression than optimal high-contrast gratings. For sub-optimal spatial frequencies, preferred size was similar to that for the optimal high-contrast stimulus, whereas for sub-optimal orientations, preferred size was smaller than that for the optimal high-contrast stimulus. These results indicate that, while contrast is an important determinant of spatial summation in V1, it is not the only determinant. Simulation of these experiments on a cortical receptive field modeled as a Gabor revealed that the small preferred sizes observed for non-preferred stimuli could result simply from linear filtering by the classical receptive field. Further simulations show that surround suppression in retinal ganglion cells and LGN cells can be propagated to neurons in V1, though certain properties of the surround seen in cortex indicate that it is not solely inherited from earlier stages of processing.


Of the many possible functions of the macaque monkey primary visual cortex (striate cortex, area 17) two are now fairly well understood. First, the incoming information from the lateral geniculate bodies is rearranged so that most cells in the striate cortex respond to specifically oriented line segments, and, second, information originating from the two eyes converges upon single cells. The rearrangement and convergence do not take place immediately, however: in layer IVc, where the bulk of the afferents terminate, virtually all cells have fields with circular symmetry and are strictly monocular, driven from the left eye or from the right, but not both; at subsequent stages, in layers above and below IVc, most cells show orientation specificity, and about half are binocular. In a binocular cell the receptive fields in the two eyes are on corresponding regions in the two retinas and are identical in structure, but one eye is usually more effective than the other in influencing the cell; all shades of ocular dominance are seen. These two functions are strongly reflected in the architecture of the cortex, in that cells with common physiological properties are grouped together in vertically organized systems of columns. In an ocular dominance column all cells respond preferentially to the same eye. By four independent anatomical methods it has been shown that these columns have the form of vertically disposed alternating left-eye and right-eye slabs, which in horizontal section form alternating stripes about 400 μm thick, with occasional bifurcations and blind endings. Cells of like orientation specificity are known from physiological recordings to be similarly grouped in much narrower vertical sheeet-like aggregations, stacked in orderly sequences so that on traversing the cortex tangentially one normally encounters a succession of small shifts in orientation, clockwise or counterclockwise; a 1 mm traverse is usually accompanied by one or several full rotations through 180°, broken at times by reversals in direction of rotation and occasionally by large abrupt shifts. A full complement of columns, of either type, left-plus-right eye or a complete 180° sequence, is termed a hypercolumn. Columns (and hence hypercolumns) have roughly the same width throughout the binocular part of the cortex. The two independent systems of hypercolumns are engrafted upon the well known topographic representation of the visual field. The receptive fields mapped in a vertical penetration through cortex show a scatter in position roughly equal to the average size of the fields themselves, and the area thus covered, the aggregate receptive field, increases with distance from the fovea. A parallel increase is seen in reciprocal magnification (the number of degrees of visual field corresponding to 1 mm of cortex). Over most or all of the striate cortex a movement of 1-2 mm, traversing several hypercolumns, is accompanied by a movement through the visual field about equal in size to the local aggregate receptive field. Thus any 1-2 mm block of cortex contains roughly the machinery needed to subserve an aggregate receptive field. In the cortex the fall-off in detail with which the visual field is analysed, as one moves out from the foveal area, is accompanied not by a reduction in thickness of layers, as is found in the retina, but by a reduction in the area of cortex (and hence the number of columnar units) devoted to a given amount of visual field: unlike the retina, the striate cortex is virtually uniform morphologically but varies in magnification. In most respects the above description fits the newborn monkey just as well as the adult, suggesting that area 17 is largely genetically programmed. The ocular dominance columns, however, are not fully developed at birth, since the geniculate terminals belonging to one eye occupy layer IVc throughout its length, segregating out into separate columns only after about the first 6 weeks, whether or not the animal has visual experience. If one eye is sutured closed during this early period the columns belonging to that eye become shrunken and their companions correspondingly expanded. This would seem to be at least in part the result of interference with normal maturation, though sprouting and retraction of axon terminals are not excluded.


2011 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 1862-1874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Churan ◽  
Daniel Guitton ◽  
Christopher C. Pack

Our perception of the positions of objects in our surroundings is surprisingly unaffected by movements of the eyes, head, and body. This suggests that the brain has a mechanism for maintaining perceptual stability, based either on the spatial relationships among visible objects or internal copies of its own motor commands. Strong evidence for the latter mechanism comes from the remapping of visual receptive fields that occurs around the time of a saccade. Remapping occurs when a single neuron responds to visual stimuli placed presaccadically in the spatial location that will be occupied by its receptive field after the completion of a saccade. Although evidence for remapping has been found in many brain areas, relatively little is known about how it interacts with sensory context. This interaction is important for understanding perceptual stability more generally, as the brain may rely on extraretinal signals or visual signals to different degrees in different contexts. Here, we have studied the interaction between visual stimulation and remapping by recording from single neurons in the superior colliculus of the macaque monkey, using several different visual stimulus conditions. We find that remapping responses are highly sensitive to low-level visual signals, with the overall luminance of the visual background exerting a particularly powerful influence. Specifically, although remapping was fairly common in complete darkness, such responses were usually decreased or abolished in the presence of modest background illumination. Thus the brain might make use of a strategy that emphasizes visual landmarks over extraretinal signals whenever the former are available.


2007 ◽  
Vol 98 (4) ◽  
pp. 2168-2181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Ichida ◽  
Lars Schwabe ◽  
Paul C. Bressloff ◽  
Alessandra Angelucci

In primary visual cortex (V1), neuronal responses to optimally oriented stimuli in the receptive field (RF) center are usually suppressed by iso-oriented stimuli in the RF surround. The mechanisms and pathways giving rise to surround modulation, a possible neural correlate of perceptual figure-ground segregation, are not yet identified. We previously proposed that highly divergent and fast-conducting top-down feedback connections are the substrate for fast modulation arising from the more distant regions of the surround. We have recently implemented this idea into a recurrent network model ( Schwabe et al. 2006 ). The purpose of this study was to test a crucial prediction of this feedback model, namely that the suppressive “far” surround of V1 neurons can be facilitatory under conditions that weakly activate neurons in the RF center. Using single-unit recordings in macaque V1, we found iso-orientation far-surround facilitation when the RF center was driven by a low-contrast stimulus and the far surround by a small annular stimulus. Suppression occurred when the center stimulus contrast or the size of the surround stimulus was increased. This suggests that center-surround interactions result from excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms of similar spatial extent, and that changes in the balance of local excitation and inhibition, induced by surround stimulation, determine whether facilitation or suppression occurs. In layer 4C, the main target of geniculocortical afferents, lacking long-range intra-cortical connections, far-surround facilitation was rare and large surround fields were absent. This strongly suggests that feedforward connections do not contribute to far-surround modulation and that the latter is generated by intra-cortical mechanisms, likely involving top-down feedback.


1985 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1068-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Duysens ◽  
G. A. Orban ◽  
J. Cremieux ◽  
H. Maes

In 149 units from area 17 and 48 units from area 18 the responses to stationary stimulation of different durations were compared with the responses to the same stimulus (a 0.3 degrees-wide light or dark bar) moving at different velocities. The aim was to test the hypothesis that the range of effective velocities depends on the time needed for the bar to cross the receptive field. Forty-two percent of the area 17 cells and 8% of the area 18 cells responded poorly or not at all to briefly presented stationary stimulation. These cells were unable to respond at high velocities, and for these "duration-sensitive" cells the velocity characteristics are well predicted on the basis of responses to stationary stimulation of different durations. Cells that responded equally well to periods of stationary stimulation ranging from 12.5 to 3,200 ms ("duration-insensitive cells") were found to be able to respond at all equivalent velocities, but their preference for either high, low, or intermediate velocities was not reflected in differences in responsiveness to the different durations tested. Duration-sensitive cells in area 17 tended to have a receptive field near the area centralis, and 73% of them were classified as S-family cells, one third being end-stopped S-cells. In contrast only 18% of the duration-insensitive cells were of the S family, and these S-family cells were rarely end-stopped (1/12) or rarely had receptive fields within 5 degrees of the fovea (3/12). Duration-sensitive cells had very long latencies (median 285 ms) in response to a stationary flashed light bar of 1 s duration but much shorter latencies (median 91 ms) when tested with a slowly moving light bar. This difference was not seen in duration-insensitive cells (median latencies = 61 and 59 ms). The ability to respond at high velocity was contrast dependent. At a low contrast level all cells failed to respond to brief stimulation, whether moving or stationary. At high contrast levels only the duration-insensitive cells showed an increased responsivity to brief stimuli. The absence of responses in duration-sensitive cells to brief stimuli of high contrast may depend upon suppressive influences reaching these cells before the excitatory influences. We conclude that the velocity upper cutoff of most S-family cells with a central receptive field can be predicted from a knowledge of the minimum duration of stationary presentation required for their activation (median ON duration threshold, 200 ms).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)


1996 ◽  
Vol 75 (6) ◽  
pp. 2467-2485 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. S. Livingstone

1. This work explores a mechanism that the brain may use for linking related percepts. It has been proposed that temporal relationships in the firing of neurons may be important in indicating how the stimuli that activate those neurons are related in the external world. Such temporal relationships cannot be seen with conventional receptive field mapping but require cross-correlation and auto-correlation analysis. 2. In the cat and the macaque monkey, cells with similar receptive field properties show correlated firing even when their receptive fields do not overlap. Here I report that in the squirrel monkey, as in the cat, pairs of cells < or = 5 mm apart can show correlated firing, and these correlations between pairs of cells are often stronger when they are stimulated by a single contour. This suggests that the correlations reflect not only permanent connections between cells with similar receptive fields, but in addition may encode information that the activating stimuli are continuous or part of a single object. I also find that, as in the cat, and contrary to some other reports on experiments in monkeys, the correlated firing is often rhythmic. These recordings further indicate that periods of rhythmicity are associated with stronger interneuronal synchrony, which is consistent with the hypothesis that recurrent feedback loops are involved in generating both. 3. Pairs of cells in the same cortical column, but at different depths also showed correlated firing, but with several milliseconds difference in timing between layers. This was true for cells at different depths within layer 2/3 and for pairs of cells in different layers (2/3 vs. 4B or 4C alpha), providing evidence for cross-talk between the magno- and parvocellular streams.


2000 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
GARY A. WALKER ◽  
IZUMI OHZAWA ◽  
RALPH D. FREEMAN

The important visual stimulus parameters for a given cell are defined by the classical receptive field (CRF). However, cells are also influenced by visual stimuli presented in areas surrounding the CRF. The experiments described here were conducted to determine the incidence and nature of CRF surround influences in the primary visual cortex. From extracellular recordings in the cat's striate cortex, we find that for over half of the cells investigated (56%, 153/271), the effect of stimulation in the surround of the CRF is to suppress the neuron's activity by at least 10% compared to the response to a grating presented within the CRF alone. For the remainder of the cells, the interactions were minimal and a few were of a facilitatory nature. In this paper, we focus on the suppressive interactions. Simple and complex cell types exhibit equal incidences of surround suppression. Suppression is observed for cells in all layers, and its degree is strongly correlated between the two eyes for binocular neurons. These results show that surround suppression is a prevalent form of inhibition and may play an important role in visual processing.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liu D. Liu ◽  
Kenneth D. Miller ◽  
Christopher C. Pack

AbstractIn the visual system, the response to a stimulus in a neuron’s receptive field can be modulated by stimulus context, and the strength of these contextual influences vary with stimulus intensity. Recent work has shown how a theoretical model, the stabilized supralinear network (SSN), can account for such modulatory influences, using a small set of computational mechanisms. While the predictions of the SSN have been confirmed in primary visual cortex (V1), its computational principles apply with equal validity to any cortical structure. We have therefore tested the generality of the SSN by examining modulatory influences in the middle temporal area (MT) of the macaque visual cortex, using electrophysiological recordings and pharmacological manipulations. We developed a novel stimulus that can be adjusted parametrically to be larger or smaller in the space of all possible motion directions. We found, as predicted by the SSN, that MT neurons integrate across motion directions for low-contrast stimuli, but that they exhibit suppression by the same stimuli when they are high in contrast. These results are analogous to those found in visual cortex when stimulus size is varied in the space domain. We further tested the mechanisms of inhibition using pharmacologically manipulations of inhibitory efficacy. As predicted by the SSN, local manipulation of inhibitory strength altered firing rates, but did not change the strength of surround suppression. These results are consistent with the idea that the SSN can account for modulatory influences along different stimulus dimensions and in different cortical areas.Significance StatementVisual neurons are selective for specific stimulus features in a region of visual space known as the receptive field, but can be modulated by stimuli outside of the receptive field. The SSN model has been proposed to account for these and other modulatory influences, and tested in V1. As this model is not specific to any particular stimulus feature or brain region, we wondered whether similar modulatory influences might be observed for other stimulus dimensions and other regions. We tested for specific patterns of modulatory influences in the domain of motion direction, using electrophysiological recordings from MT. Our data confirm the predictions of the SSN in MT, suggesting that the SSN computations might be a generic feature of sensory cortex.


Perception ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 25 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 95-95
Author(s):  
J B Levitt ◽  
J S Lund

We have studied the effect of varying stimulus contrast on the modulatory effects exerted on V1 receptive fields by surrounding portions of the visual field. We used standard extracellular techniques to record unit activity in striate cortex of paralysed, opiate-anaesthetised macaque monkeys. We measured the orientation and direction tuning of neurons at several contrasts, with and without the presence of a surrounding stimulus that itself evoked minimal responses from the neuron. At both high and low stimulus contrasts, surround stimuli modulated responses to centre stimuli when the orientation and direction of the centre and surround were in the appropriate (though not necessarily matched) relationship. At low contrasts, we observed more profound suppression and facilitation. However, this did not simply reflect release from response saturation. At low contrasts, a greater range of surround orientations could modulate neuronal responses. This sometimes resulted in identical surround stimuli being suppressive when pairs with high-contrast centre stimuli, but facilitative when paired with low-contrast centre stimuli. Further evidence against response saturation at high contrasts was the frequent anisotropy in the suppression, ie suppression was direction-selective at high contrast, but nondirectional at low contrasts. Such contrast-dependent effects were also revealed by measurements of contrast response functions in the presence of the surround. We sometimes observed not only a decrease in the response to high-contrast stimuli and a lower slope of the response-versus-contrast curve but also an increase in responsiveness to low-contrast centre stimuli in the presence of nominally suppressive surround stimuli. Contextual effects in striate cortex thus depend importantly on the relative contrasts of centre and surround stimuli.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Yedutenko ◽  
Marcus H. C. Howlett ◽  
Maarten Kamermans

The goal of sensory processing is to represent the environment of an animal. All sensory systems share a similar constraint: they need to encode a wide range of stimulus magnitudes within their narrow neuronal response range. The most efficient way, exploited by even the simplest nervous systems, is to encode relative changes in stimulus magnitude rather than the absolute magnitudes. For instance, the retina encodes contrast, which are the variations of light intensity occurring in time and in space. From this perspective, it is easy to understand why the bright plumage of a moving bird gains a lot of attention, while an octopus remains motionless and mimics its surroundings for concealment. Stronger contrasts simply cause stronger visual signals. However, the gains in retinal performance associated with higher contrast are far more than what can be attributed to just a trivial linear increase in signal strength. Here we discuss how this improvement in performance is reflected throughout different parts of the neural circuitry, within its neural code and how high contrast activates many non-linear mechanisms to unlock several sophisticated retinal computations that are virtually impossible in low contrast conditions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document