scholarly journals Contribution of receptive field center and surround to repetition suppression in macaque visual area V2

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 2462
Author(s):  
Nathaniel P. Williams ◽  
Carl R. Olson
1992 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 430-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Sakai ◽  
K. Naka

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)


1991 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Cohen ◽  
P. Sterling

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.


1987 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 357-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. N. Mastronarde

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)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document