scholarly journals Initiating the tracking of a target moving across the central visual field: a study in macaque monkey

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 2676
Author(s):  
Nicolas Orlando-Dessaints ◽  
Laurent GOFFART
1990 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Fries

AbstractThe projection from striate and prestriate visual cortex to the pontine nuclei has been studied in the macaque monkey by means of anterograde tracer techniques in order to assess the contribution of anatomically and functionally distinct visual cortical areas to the cortico-ponto-cerebellar loop. No projection to the pons was found from central or paracentral visual-field representations of V1 (striate cortex) or prestriate visual areas V2, and V4. Small patches of terminal labeling occurred after injections of tracer into more peripheral parts of V1, V2 and V3, and into V3A. The terminal fields were located most dorsolaterally in the anterior to middle third of the pons and were quite restricted in their rostro-caudal extent. Injections of V5, however, yielded substantial terminal labeling, stretching longitudinally throughout almost the entire pons. This projection could be demonstrated to arise from parts of V5 receiving input from central visual-field representations of striate cortex, whereas parts of V4 receiving similarly central visual-field input had no detectable projection to the pons. Its distribution may overlap to a large extent with the termination of tecto-pontine fibers and with the termination of fibers from visual areas in the medial bank (area V6 or P0) and lateral bank (area LIP) of the intraparietal sulcus, as well as from frontal eye fields (FEF). It appears that the main information relayed to the cerebellum by the visual corticopontine projection is related to movement in the field of view.


2021 ◽  
Vol 223 ◽  
pp. 229-240
Author(s):  
Eren Ekici ◽  
Sasan Moghimi ◽  
Huiyuan Hou ◽  
James Proudfoot ◽  
Linda M. Zangwill ◽  
...  

1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Desimone ◽  
Jeffrey Moran ◽  
Stanley J. Schein ◽  
Mortimer Mishkin

AbstractThe classically defined receptive fields of V4 cells are confined almost entirely to the contralateral visual field. However, these receptive fields are often surrounded by large, silent suppressive regions, and stimulating the surrounds can cause a complete suppression of response to a simultaneously presented stimulus within the receptive field. We investigated whether the suppressive surrounds might extend across the midline into the ipsilateral visual field and, if so, whether the surrounds were dependent on the corpus callosum, which has a widespread distribution in V4. We found that the surrounds of more than half of the cells tested in the central visual field representation of V4 crossed into the ipsilateral visual field, with some extending up to at least 16 deg from the vertical meridian. Much of this suppression from the ipsilateral field was mediated by the corpus callosum, as section of the callosum dramatically reduced both the strength and extent of the surrounds. There remained, however, some residual suppression that was not further reduced by addition of an anterior commissure lesion. Because the residual ipsilateral suppression was similar in magnitude and extent to that found following section of the optic tract contralateral to the V4 recording, we concluded that it was retinal in origin. Using the same techniques employed in V4, we also mapped the ipsilateral extent of surrounds in the foveal representation of VI in an intact monkey. Results were very similar to those in V4 following commissural or contralateral tract sections. The findings suggest that V4 is a central site for long-range interactions both within and across the two visual hemifields. Taken with previous work, the results are consistent with the notion that the large suppressive surrounds of V4 neurons contribute to the neural mechanisms of color constancy and figure-ground separation.


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.


2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 534-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Perdicchi ◽  
M. Iester ◽  
G. Scuderi ◽  
S. Amodeo ◽  
E.M. Medori ◽  
...  

Purpose To make a visual field retrospective analysis on a group of patients with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) and to evaluate whether different refractive errors could have different progression of the 30° central sensitivity. Methods A total of 110 patients with POAG (52 men and 58 women) were included in the study. All the patients were divided into four subgroups based on the refractive error. The visual field of all the included patients was assessed by an Octopus 30° central visual field every 6 months, for a total of 837 visual fields examined. The resulting data were analyzed by PERIDATA for Windows 1.7 TREND function. Mean defect (MD) and loss variance (LV) were considered for the analysis. Results At the first examination, 82% of eyes showed a global decrease of differential light sensitivity (MD >2 dB) and in 67% the distribution of the defect was nonhomogeneous (LV >6 dB). The analysis of variance for subgroups showed a more significant decrease of MD in highly myopic patients. A linear regression analysis highlighted a statistically significant change in time of MD in 36% and of LV in 34% of the eyes studied. Highly myopic patients had the highest (p<0.01) percentage of change of MD and LV (46% and 42%, respectively). Among the four subgroups, there was no difference in progression of MD decrease in time. Conclusions These results showed that after 5 years of glaucoma, the visual field was altered in most of the eyes examined (82%) and that in 67% of cases, its defect was nonhomogeneous and worsened with the increase of myopia. The regression linear analysis of visual field changes in time showed a progressive increase of MD and LV in approximately one third of all the eyes examined.


Author(s):  
Nevin W. El-Nimri ◽  
Rafaella C. Penteado ◽  
Christopher Bowd ◽  
James A. Proudfoot ◽  
Huiyuan Hou ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document