Binocular interaction in the perigeniculate nucleus of the cat

Abstract

We have recorded from single cells in the perigeniculate nucleus (PGN) of the cat to determine their response properties. Quantitative tests have been conducted with sinusoidal gratings. Using optimal stimulus parameters, determined monocularly, we explored binocular interaction by varying the relative phase between dichoptically presented gratings. Monocularly, cells exhibit varying degrees of response specificities with respect to stimulus orientation and spatial frequency. Binocularly, we have identified six types of response. The most prominent, type 1, found for half the cells, is phase-specific binocular interaction at the fundamental frequency component of the drifting grating. For these cells, mean response rate is independent of interocular phase. The remaining types of binocular responses involve varying degrees of interaction at different harmonic components. For a quarter of the sample, no binocular interaction was observed. To investigate the role of cortical input to PGN, visual cortex was removed from some cats. Subsequent study of PGN cells indicated that response properties were generally similar to those found in intact animals. We conclude that PGN response properties are determined primarily by subcortical inputs.

Temporal interactions in the cat visual system. II. Suppressive and facilitatory effects in the lateral geniculate nucleus

“…Unlike cells of the recurrent pathway (perigeniculate neurons), which are reported to respond well only to larger stimuli (Sanderson, 197 1;Dubin and Cleland, 1977;So and Shapley, 198 1;Xue et al, 1988) the intrageniculate interneurons should be driven maximally by small spots and less vigorously by large stimuli (Dubin and Cleland, 1977). Offset suppression observed in this study was, however, usually as strong for large stimuli as for small.…”

“…Studies of perigeniculate neurons indicate that they respond transiently and frequently respond equally to stimulus onset and offset (Sanderson, 1971;Dubin and Cleland, 1977;AhlsCn and Lindstriim, 198 1;So and Shapley, 198 1;Xue et al, 1988). In contrast, intracellular recordings from identified intrageniculate interneurons indicate that they give sustained responses similar in time course to those of sustained projection neurons (Sherman and Friedlander, 1988).…”

Dynamic Spatial Processing Originates in Early Visual Pathways

“…A second factor that may explain this discrepancy is the contribution of SF-specific input that is activated differently by the oriented stimuli in the subspace reverse correlation procedure versus the individual pixels in spatial reverse correlation. A likely source of nonlinear input is the perigeniculate nucleus, which responds preferentially to large, lowfrequency stimuli and provides inhibitory feedback to relay cells in the LGN (So and Shapley, 1981;Price and Morgan, 1987;Xue et al, 1988;Funke and Eysel, 1998).…”

Inhibitory Interactions between Perigeniculate GABAergic Neurons

“…Investigations of the receptive field properties of perigeniculate neurons in the anesthetized cat indicate that they typically are binocular, although dominated by one eye, have large receptive fields in comparison to thalamocortical cells, and exhibit both ON and OFF visual responses (Sanderson, 1971;So and Shapley, 1981;Xue et al, 1988;Uhlrich et al, 1991). Presumably these properties allow PGN neurons to contribute to binocular and long-range inhibition in the LGNd (Eysel et al, 1986).…”