Interocular transfer of habits learned monocularly in visually naive and visually experienced cats.

Riesen, Austin H.; Kurke, Martin I.; Mellinger, Jeanne C.

doi:10.1037/h0057003

Cited by 47 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several authors have considered the possibility of defects in visual control of movement, distinct from loss of acuity, following visual deprivation (Riesen, Kurke & Mellinger, 1953;Meyers & McCleary, 1964; see review by Held, 1967). The Water Barrier Test required visual control of paw placement but made only modest demands on visual acuity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of monocular deprivation on visual behaviour in kittens

Dews¹,

Wiesel²

1970

The Journal of Physiology

261

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY1. Kittens were raised for a period with one of their eyes closed by suture of the lids. The age at suture and the duration of deprivation were varied systematically. When the cat was a year or more old, the normal and deprived eyes were compared using behavioural procedures which made graded demands on visual function.2. In kittens deprived from birth, the duration of eye closure determined the severity of the defect in vision with the deprived eye. A cat with an eye closed for the first 4-6 weeks showed as a permanent effect only a lowering of the visual acuity. When closure was extended through the first 7 weeks the visual acuity was further lowered but the animal still showed good visual guidance of paw placement. Further extension of deprivation through the first 16 weeks led to a still more severe defect; such animals showed no indication of visual guidance of paw placement or of pattern discrimination. They were influenced visually by stimuli that differed in luminosity.3. The upper age limit of the susceptibility to deprivation was determined by varying the age at eye closure. Waiting until 1 month of age before closing the eye conferred no appreciable protection. Waiting until 2 months of age, however, reduced the damage. Deprivation starting at 4 months of age or later produced no effect we could detect. Thus, susceptibility is greatest during the second month after birth and then falls until by 4 months of age the kitten, like the adult cat, suffers no permanent consequences of monocular light and form deprivation.4. After exclusive use of the deprived eye for a period, brought about by closure of the normal eye, visual control with the deprived eye was better than in similarly deprived cats whose normal eye was never closed. Improvement in the deprived eye was also seen in an animal whose normal eye was closed after both eyes had been open for more than one year.I15-2 P. B. DEWS AND T. N. WIESEL 5. Relating the behavioural results to the neurophysiological findings in the visual cortex in the same or similarly deprived cats shows that the grading of visual defects with age and length of deprivation was generally paralleled by a change in proportion of cortical cells driven by stimulation of the deprived eye. The effect of reversal of eye closure in improving behavioural control was not, however, accompanied by an increase in the ability of the deprived eye to drive cortical cells.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of monocular deprivation on visual behaviour in kittens

Dews¹,

Wiesel²

1970

The Journal of Physiology

261

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In support of this statement is a considerable body of evidence showing that behavioural deficits in a visual task occur when animals are reared in darkness (e.g. Goodman, 1932;Riesen, 1947;Riesen, Kurke & Mellinger, 1953). In animals deprived of light in early life there are significant histological changes in retina and optic nerve (Chow, Riesen & Newell, 1957;Weiskrantz, 1958;Rasch, Swift, Riesen & Chow, 1961;Wendell-Smith, 1964), in the LGN (Wiesel & Hubel, 1963Kupfer & Palmer, 1964) and in visual cortex (Gyllensten, 1959).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Disuse in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat

Burke¹,

Hayhow²

1968

The Journal of Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY1. An attempt has been made to produce disuse in the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) of the cat, in the synapses between the optic nerve fibres and the principal cells of the nucleus. Evidence is produced that destruction of the visual receptor cells by iodoacetate or 1,5-di(p-aminophenoxy) pentane dihydrochloride effectively silences the optic nerve discharge and so achieves this result.2. Disuse of the LGN synapses does not cause any decrease in synaptic efficiency. The LGN response to a single stimulus to the optic nerve was not appreciably altered, and the depression which normally follows single or repeated stimuli was much reduced or absent. This increased responsiveness was unaffected by prolonged tetanization of the optic nerve during the experiment.3. Two possible explanations of the increased responsiveness are suggested: a post-synaptic 'decentralization '-hypersensitivity and an increased output of transmitter per impulse. The relevance of these results to theories of learning is discussed.4. The LGN response of adult cats kept in complete darkness for periods of up to 966 days was not appreciably different from that in the normal cat and there was little or no increased responsiveness. This suggests that many retinal ganglion cells continue to discharge in total darkness for long periods. There is a possibility that disuse may develop after a long time in the dark.

show abstract

“…Although normal cats show immediate transfer of monocularly-learned visual-pattern discriminations, cats whose visual experience through one eye has been previously restricted to diffuse light do not exhibit interocular habit transfer (Riesen, Kurke, & Mellinger, 1953). In fact, some stimulation of both eyes by patterned light has been found necessary before transfer will occur (Riesen & Mellinger, 1956).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%