Comparison of receptive-field properties of X and Y ganglion cells with X and Y lateral geniculate cells in the cat

1979 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 274-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bullier ◽  
T. T. Norton
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Large Field ◽  
Field Center ◽  
Receptive Field Properties ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Y Cells ◽  
Type Response ◽  
Receptive Field Center

1. To examine the transmission of visual information through the lateral geniculate nucleus, we have studied the receptive-field properties of 65 X and Y optic tract axons and compared them with the receptive-field properties of X and Y LGN cells in paralyzed cats anesthetized with N2O/O2 (70/30%). The same experimental conditions and quantitative methods have been used as in the preceding study of LGN cells (2). 2. The spatiotemporal organization of the receptive fields of X and Y retinal axons are similar to those of X and Y LGN cells. X ganglion cell receptive fields show a simple center-surround organization, whereas Y ganglion cell receptive fields show a more complex organization with three concentric regions: a central region of center-type response, a region of mixed center-type and surround-type responses, and a region of surround-type response. 3. The inhibitory strengh of the surrounding region was tested with a centrally located flashing light spot of successively increased diameter. As in the LGN, the inhibitory strenght of the surrounding region was stronger in retinal X-cells than in retinal Y-cells, and the strength of the inhibition decreased as the diameter of the receptive-field center increased. 4. The decrease of the inhibitory strength of the surrounding region with increasing distance from the receptive-field center was similar in the retina and in the LGN for cells belonging to the same class (X or Y) and having the same receptive-field center size. 5. The differences in properties in the LGN between small-field X-, large-field X-, and Y-cells are best explained by assuming that they are driven, respectively, by small-field X, large-field X, and Y retinal ganglion cells. There does not appear to be a significant mixing of properties either between cells having different receptive-field center sizes. 6. The principal transformation we found between retinal and LGN units is that X LGN cells have sharply lower spontaneous activities and driven activities, as compared with X ganglion cells. Y LGN units show only a small decrease in spontaneous activity in comparison with Y ganglion cells. 7. We conclude that there is a significant alteration in the LGN only in the properties of X-cells, possibly by way of a strong inhibitory pool converging on X LGN units. We further suggest that this inhibitory pool plays a role in the modulation of transmission of information through the LGN only in the X channel, while the Y channel appears to be relatively unaffected.

Two classes of single-input X-cells in cat lateral geniculate nucleus. I. Receptive-field properties and classification of cells

1987 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 357-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. N. Mastronarde
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Lateral Geniculate Nucleus ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Visual Responses ◽  
Field Center ◽  
Lateral Geniculate ◽  
Receptive Field Properties ◽  
Single Input ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Receptive Field Center

Cells in the cat's dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) were studied by presentation of visual stimuli and also by simultaneous recording of their ganglion cell inputs in the retina. This paper describes receptive-field properties and a new system of classification for LGN X-cells that appear to receive essentially only one excitatory retinal input. These X-cells were of two distinct classes. The visual responses of one class of cell (XS, single) replicated the basic form of the responses of a retinal X-cell. The other class of cell (XL, lagged) had responses with two remarkable features: their firing lagged 40-80 ms behind that of XS-cells or ganglion cells at response onset, and they fired anomalously at times when XS-cells or ganglion cells would not be firing. Thus, for a flashing spot, XL-cells were inhibited from firing after stimulus onset, during the time when XS-cells or retinal X-cells had an initial transient peak in firing; XL-cells generally had an anomalous peak in firing after stimulus offset, after XS-cells or retinal X-cells had stopped firing. For a moving bar, XS-cells or retinal X-cells responded primarily while the bar was in the receptive-field center, whereas most of a typical XL-cell's response occurred after the bar had left the receptive-field center. The latencies of various features in the visual responses were analyzed. For several visual response latencies, the distribution was clearly bimodal, thus objectively demonstrating the existence of two cell classes. Using only the latencies from spot and bar responses, over 90% of these single-input cells could be reliably identified as belonging to one of the two classes. The remaining cells (7 of 128) were intermediate between the two classes in some but not all respects; because they had some properties in common, these cells were kept in a separate group (XPL, partially lagged). The axons of both XS- and XL-cells could be antidromically activated from visual cortex. Cortical latencies were typically 0.7-2.0 ms for XS-cells but much longer, typically 2.4-5.0 ms, for XL-cells. It is possible that XL-cells have not previously been recognized as a separate class because cells with such long latencies have been recorded infrequently in the past. Responses to central flashing spots were more transient than those of retinal X-cells for most XS-cells and more sustained for most XL-cells.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Response properties of ganglion cells in the isolated mouse retina

1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlene Stone ◽  
Lawrence H. Pinto
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Cutoff Frequency ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
Mouse Retina ◽  
Sinusoidal Grating ◽  
Central Retina ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Y Cells ◽  
Receptive Field Center

AbstractWe have studied the organization of receptive fields of ganglion cells in the isolated mouse retina and have shown that the organization is similar to that of the cat. Based upon responses to circular and annular stimuli, most ganglion cells (90%; N = 83) had receptive fields with concentric center-surround organization, either ON or OFF center. The plot of response amplitude vs. stimulus area for these cells increased to a maximum (corresponding to a diameter of 10.0 ± 2.8 deg S.E.M.; N = 13) and then decreased for larger stimuli, demonstrating the presence of an antagonistic surround. The dark-adapted sensitivity (205 ± 43.8 impulses quantum−1 rod−1; mean ± S.E.M.) did not differ from that measured for the intact preparation. We found a subset of OFF-center cells for which the dark discharge was very regular (mean coefficient of variation = 0.30). Using sinusoidal grating stimuli, we classified ganglion cells as X-like (87%) and Y-like (13%) based on spatial summation properties and the presence of subunit activity in the receptive-field center. We found no difference in the spatial-frequency preference between X-like and Y-like cells in the central retina (high cutoff frequency, 0.20 ± 0.014 cycle/deg, mean ± S.E.M.), in contrast to the marked difference between X cells and Y cells in the cat. Thus, ganglion cell receptive fields in the mouse retina resemble those of the cat, although the spatial characteristics of the receptive fields in the central retina are more homogeneous. This homogeneity would simplify the comparison of retinas from normal and mutant strains of the mouse.

Velocity tuning of cells in dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus and retina of the cat

1983 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 1393-1414 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. J. Frishman ◽  
D. E. Schweitzer-Tong ◽  
E. B. Goldstein
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
Stimulus Strength ◽  
Tuning Curves ◽  
Field Center ◽  
Lateral Geniculate ◽  
X And Y Cells ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Y Cells ◽  
Receptive Field Center

Velocity tuning curves were measured for on-center cells in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat using a stimulus approximately the height and one-fourth the width of the hand-plotted receptive-field center. The standard stimulus strength was 1 log unit above the mesopic background luminance. Lateral geniculate Y-cells had significantly higher preferred velocities than geniculate X-cells when cells with receptive fields having the same range of retinal eccentricities were compared. Preferred velocity increased for both classes of cells as a function of retinal eccentricity. For all geniculate cells, preferred velocity increased with stimulus strength, showing an approximately threefold increase in preferred velocity for each log unit of stimulus strength. Preferred velocity was measured for on-center retinal ganglion cells with receptive fields at the same range of retinal eccentricities as the geniculate sample and under the same stimulus conditions. Preferred velocities of retinal ganglion Y-cells were significantly higher than those of ganglion X-cells, and as for geniculate cells, preferred velocities increased with increasing stimulus strength. However, the classes were better separated in the geniculate than in the retina; with geniculate X-cells having lower preferred velocities than retinal X-cells, and the geniculate Y-cells having higher preferred velocities than retinal Y-cells. For retinal ganglion cells, smaller receptive-field center sizes of the X-cells than the Y-cells could account in large part for the lower preferred velocities of the X-cells. However, for geniculate cells, differences in receptive-field center size could not account as well for the differences in preferred velocity between X- and Y-cells. Furthermore, field size differences could not account for the differences in preferred velocity between ganglion and geniculate cells of the same functional class. Experiments comparing responses to moving stimuli and flashed stationary stimuli show that stimuli moving at high velocities are in effect equivalent to brief-duration flashes, and responses are governed by the same laws of temporal summation in both cases. When velocity tuning curves were measured with long bars that enhanced peripheral inhibition, geniculate X- and Y-cells were better separated than ganglion X- and Y-cells, not only with respect to preferred velocity but also, with respect to velocity selectivity (width of the velocity tuning curve) and differential velocity sensitivity (slope of the leg of the velocity tuning curves ascending from low velocities to the peak).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Fine structure of receptive-field centers of X and Y cells of the cat

1991 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 621-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. E. Soodak ◽  
R. M. Shapley ◽  
E. Kaplan
Keyword(s):  
Fine Structure ◽  
Receptive Field ◽  
Spatial Frequency ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Subunit Structure ◽  
Field Center ◽  
X And Y Cells ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Y Cells ◽  
Receptive Field Center

AbstractWe investigated the fine structure of receptive field centers of X and Y cells of the retina and lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat using sinusoidal grating stimuli of high spatial frequency. By measuring orientation tuning and spatial-frequency tuning at multiple orientations, the two-dimensional sensitivity distribution was examined. We found that receptive-field centers typically have multiple sensitivity peaks that can be modeled as several spatially offset subunits. A subunit structure was found in both X and Y cells, with an average number of subunits per receptive-field center of approximately 2.9 in X cells and approximately 4.6 in Y cells. In X cells these subunits may correspond to individual cone bipolar inputs. In Y cells, the subunits may reflect the structure of the dendritic tree. The observation of the subunit structure of the receptive-field center, in conjunction with manipulation of the retinal wiring through pharmacological intervention, may provide a new tool for probing the circuitry of the retina.

scholarly journals The involvement of gamma-aminobutyric acid in the organization of cat retinal ganglion cell receptive fields. A study with picrotoxin and bicuculline.

1976 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
A W Kirby ◽  
C Enroth-Cugell
Keyword(s):  
Retinal Ganglion Cells ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Aminobutyric Acid ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
Gamma Aminobutyric Acid ◽  
Control Response ◽  
Subsequent Effect ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Y Cells

The effects of picrotoxin and bicuculline upon the discharge pattern of center-surround organized cat retinal ganglion cells of X and Y type were studied. All experiments were carried out under scotopic or possibly low mesopic conditions; mostly but not exclusively on-center cells were studied. Stimuli were chosen so that responses were either; (a) "purely" central; (b) surround dominated; or (c) clearly mixed but center dominated. In each case a pre-drug control response was estaboished, the drug was administered intravenously, and its subsequent effect upon the response was observed. In Y cells both picrotoxin and bicucullin caused the center-driven component of the response to become somewhat reduced in magnitude, while the surround component was substantially reduced. There was thus a change in center-surround balance in favor of the center-driven component. Responses of X cells remained virtually unaffected by both picrotoxin and bicuculline.

Receptive-field properties of neurons in different laminae of visual cortex of the cat

1978 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 948-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Leventhal ◽  
H. V. Hirsch
Keyword(s):  
Visual Cortex ◽  
Receptive Field ◽  
Striate Cortex ◽  
Visual Stimulation ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Spontaneous Discharge ◽  
C Cells ◽  
Receptive Field Properties ◽  
Discharge Rates ◽  
Y Cells

1. Receptive-field properties of neurons in the different layers of the visual cortex of normal adult cats were analyzed quantitatively. Neurons were classified into one of two groups: 1) S-cells, which have discrete on- and/or off-regions in their receptive fields and possess inhibitory side bands; 2) C-cells, which do not have discrete on- and off-regions in their receptive fields but display an on-off response to flashing stimuli. Neurons of this type rarely display side-band inhibition. 2. As a group, S-cells display lower relative degrees of binocularity and are more selective for stimulus orientation than C-cells. In addition, within a given lamina the S-cells have smaller receptive fields, lower cutoff velocities, lower peak responses to visual stimulation, and lower spontaneous activity than do the C-cells. 3. S-cells in all layers of the cortex display similar orientation sensitivities, mean spontaneous discharge rates, peak response to visual stimulation, and degrees of binocularity. 4. Many of the receptive-field properties of cortical cells vary with laminar location. Receptive-field sizes and cutoff velocities of S-cells and of C-cells are greater in layers V and VI than in layers II-IV. For S-cells, preferred velocities are also greater in layers V and VI than in layers II-IV. Furthermore, C-cells in layers V and VI display high mean spontaneous discharge rates, weak orientation preferences, high relative degrees of binocularity, and higher peak responses to visual stimulation when compared to C-cells in layers II and III. 5. The receptive-field properties of cells in layers V-VI of the striate cortex suggest that most neurons that have their somata in these laminae receive afferents from LGNd Y-cells. Hence, our results suggest that afferents from LGNd Y-cells may play a major part in the cortical control of subcortical visual functions.

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)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document