Dichoptic interactions of lateral geniculate neurons of cats to contralateral and ipsilateral eye stimulation.

Lindsley, David F.; Chow, K. W.; Gollender, Morton

doi:10.1152/jn.1967.30.3.628

Cited by 35 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As strabismic amblyopia changes the histological structure of area 17 and the amplitude of visually evoked potentials-most probably by binocular competition-we get a hint that binocular rivalry as well might be caused by inhibitory processes acting in or being controlled by area 17. This agrees well with electrophysiological results in cats of Suzuki and Kato (1966); Lindsley, Chow and Gollender (1967); Singer and Creutzfeldt (1970); Singer (1970); Schmielau and Singer (1977) and also indirectly with experiments by Baflow, Blakemore and Pettigrew (1967) and Bishop, Henry and Smith (1971) who all found some kind of inhibitory interactions for non-fusable patterns in area 17 and in the lateral geniculate body of the cat (cf. also Wiesel and Hubel, 1963;Fiorentini, 1976 andIkeda andTremain, 1978).…”

Section: Amblyopia Is Caused Mainly By Binocular Competition and Suppsupporting

confidence: 92%

Non-fusable stimuli and the role of binocular inhibition in normal and pathologic vision, especially strabismus

Fahle

1983

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimuli on corresponding points of both retinae that cannot be fused may cause binocular rivalry: the stimuli suppress each other alternately. This effect was used to study the influence of image sharpness upon binocular inhibition. Blurring an image means decreasing its contrast and attenuating its high spatial frequencies. Both factors diminish the time that a stimulus is perceived during rivalry. This fact has implications both for normal vision--as objects off the horopter are normally blurred--and for disturbed vision when the image of one or both eyes is (locally) deteriorated. In both cases, the binocular field of view can be combined from the 'good' parts of both eyes. Hence, the field of view may consist, in a piece-meal fashion, of parts stemming from the right or the left eye exclusively and others where both images are superimposed. We present evidence for the hypothesis that there is a common neural mechanism causing both binocular rivalry and functional amblyopia in anisometropia and strabismus. Consequences of the results on rivalry suppression for the pathophysiology and therapy of strabismic amblyopia are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Amblyopia Is Caused Mainly By Binocular Competition and Suppsupporting

confidence: 92%

Non-fusable stimuli and the role of binocular inhibition in normal and pathologic vision, especially strabismus

Fahle

1983

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the cat visual system, at least, there is some reason to believe that the two eyes might interact at the geniculate. Dichoptic interactions have been observed by Fillenz (1961) and by Lindsley, Chow, and Gollender (1967), and Bishop and his co-workers (Bishop, Burke, & Davis, 1959) have reported activation of geniculate cells by stimulation of either optic nerve. However, against this evidence is the work of Hubel and Wiesel (1961) and Sturr and Battersby (1966) which implies that interactions at the level of the geniculate are minimal at best.…”

Section: General Discussion Of Experiments I-ixmentioning

confidence: 91%

On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli.

1973

Psychological Review

879

555

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The masking of briefly exposed letter forms by a preceding or succeeding stimulus may originate in either peripheral or central visual mechanisms. The question of how masking varies with origin was examined in a series of experiments which made use of stimuli that masked the target forms only monoptically (or binocularly), or both monoptically and dichoptically. Peripheral forward and backward masking were described by a simple relation between target stimulus energy and the minimal interval between target offset and mask onset permitting evasion of masking: the minimal interval multiplied by the target energy equals a constant. Peripheral forward masking, however, was more sensitive to mask intensity than was peripheral backward masking. On the other hand, central masking, which was primarily backward, was relatively unaffected by stimulus energy and was determined by the interval elapsing between the onsets of the two stimuli. The multiplicative rule and the onset-onset rule characterized, respectively, peripheral and central visual processes. The peripheral processes were viewed as a set of parallel systems or nets signaling crude features of the stimulus and the central processes as a series of decisions conducted, in part, on these features and resulting in stimulus recognition. It was hypothesized that the peripheral and central processes were related in a concurrent and contingent fashion: apparently, the two occur in parallel, with the central decisions contingent on the output of the peripheral systems which signal different features at different rates.Perceptual interference results when two stimuli are delivered to an observer in rapid succession. The term "forward masking"

show abstract

“…Lindsley et al (200) saw in 20 per cent of the units a larger variety of interocular ("dichoptic") effects (change of latency and alteration of discharge pattern). Very few cells with clearly defined responses to stimulation of each eye were mentioned again (200) .…”

Section: Neurophysiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurophysiology of Vision

Creutzfeldt¹,

Sakmann²

1969

Annu. Rev. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High resolution monitoring of stimulus-evoked retinal neural activities is important for understanding retinal neural mechanisms, and can be a powerful tool for retinal disease diagnosis and treatment outcome evaluation. Fast intrinsic optical signals (IOSs), which have the time courses comparable to that of electrophysiological activities in the retina, hold the promise for high resolution imaging of retinal neural activities. However, application of fast IOS imaging has been hindered by the contamination of slow, high magnitude optical responses associated with transient hemodynamic and metabolic changes. In this paper we demonstrate the feasibility of separating fast retinal IOSs from slow optical responses by combining flicker stimulation and dynamic (temporal) differential image processing. A near infrared flood-illumination microscope equipped with a high-speed (1000 Hz) digital camera was used to conduct concurrent optical imaging and ERG measurement of isolated frog retinas. High spatiotemporal resolution imaging revealed that fast IOSs could follow flicker frequency up to at least 6 Hz. Comparable time courses of fast IOSs and ERG kinetics provide evidence that fast IOSs are originated from stimulus activated retinal neurons.

show abstract

Dichoptic interactions of lateral geniculate neurons of cats to contralateral and ipsilateral eye stimulation.

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

Non-fusable stimuli and the role of binocular inhibition in normal and pathologic vision, especially strabismus

Non-fusable stimuli and the role of binocular inhibition in normal and pathologic vision, especially strabismus

On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli.

Neurophysiology of Vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About