3. These Q cells appear to form a homogeneous group which is probably a subset of the tonic W cells (Stone & Fukuda, 1974) or sluggish centre-surround cells (Cleland & Levick, 1974).4. The over-all spatio-temporal frequency characteristics of cells showing linear spatial summation are not separable in space and time. The form of the spatial frequency responsivity function of these cells depends upon the temporal frequency at which it is measured while the temporal phase of their response measured at any constant temporal frequency depends upon the spatial frequency of the stimulus.5. The behaviour of X and Q cells is quite well explained by an extension of the model in which signals from centre and surround mechanisms with radially Gaussian weighting functions are summed to provide the drive to the retinal ganglion cell. While the general form of the temporal frequency response characteristics of these ganglion cells are probably provided by the characteristics of elements common to the centre and surround pathways, the spatio-temporal interactions can be explained by assuming that the surround signal is delayed relative to the centre signal by a few milliseconds.

Spatiotemporal frequency responses were measured at different levels of light adaptation for cat X and Y retinal ganglion cells. Stationary sinusoidal luminance gratings whose contrast was modulated sinusoidally in time or drifting gratings were used as stimuli . Under photopic illumination, when the spatial frequency was held constant at or above its optimum value, an X cell's responsivity was essentially constant as the temporal frequency was changed from 1 .5 to 30 Hz. At lower temporal frequencies, responsivity rolled off gradually, and at higher ones it rolled off rapidly. In contrast, when the spatial frequency was held constant at a low value, an X cell's responsivity increased continuously with temporal frequency from a very low value at 0.1 Hz to substantial values at temporal frequencies higher than 30 Hz, from which responsivity rolled off again . Thus, 0 cycles -deg' became the optimal spatial frequency above 30 Hz. For Y cells under photopic illumination, the spatiotemporal interaction was even more complex. When the spatial frequency was held constant at or above its optimal value, the temporal frequency range over which responsivity was constant was shorter than that of X cells . At lower spatial frequencies, this range was not appreciably different . As for X cells, 0 cycles deg ' was the optimal spatial frequency above 30 Hz . Temporal resolution (defined as the high temporal frequency at which responsivity had fallen to 10 impulses -s') for a uniform field was^-95 Hz for X cells and^-120 Hz for Y cells under photopic illumination . Temporal resolution was lower at lower adaptation levels. The results were interpreted in terms of a Gaussian centersurround model . For X cells, the surround and center strengths were nearly equal at low and moderate temporal frequencies, but the surround strength exceeded the center strength above 30 Hz . Thus, the response to a spatially uniform stimulus at high temporal frequencies was dominated by the surround. In addition, at temporal frequencies above 30 Hz, the center radius increased .

The goal of this work was to provide a detailed quantitative description of the recepii ve-field properties of one of the types of rarely encountered retinal ganglion cells of cat; the cell named the Q-cell by Enroth-Cugell et al. (1983). Quantitative comparisons are made between the discharge statistics and between the spatial receptive properties of Q-cells and the most common of cat retinal ganglion cells, the X-cells. The center-surround receptive field of the Q-cell is modeled here quantitatively and the typical Q-cell is described. The temporal properties of the Q-cell receptive field were also investigated and the dynamics of the center mechanism of the Q-cell modeled quantitatively. In addition, the response vs. contrast relationship for a Q-cell at optimal spatial and temporal frequencies is shown, and Q-cells are also demonstrated to have nonlinear spatial summation somewhat like that exhibited by Y-cells, although much higher contrasts are required to reveal this nonlinear behavior. Finally, the relationship between Q-cells and Barlow and Levick's (1969) luminance units was investigated and it was found that most Q-cells could not be luminance units.

SUMMARY1. The effect ofGABA-antagonists on centre size ofY-type retinal ganglion cells was measured under conditions which ensured that cells were rod driven.2. Both bicuculline and picrotoxin, administered intravenously, led to reliable and reversible changes in centre size as determined by area-sensitivity measurements.3. The administration of GABA-antagonists produced opposite results in on-and off-centre cells; the centre summing area decreased in on-centre cells and increased in off-centre cells.

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)