Lateral interactions in the perception of flicker and in the physiology of the lateral geniculate nucleus

Kremers, Jan; Kozyrev, Vladislav; Silveira, Luiz Carlos de Lima; Kilavik, Bjørg Elisabeth

doi:10.1167/4.7.10

Cited by 18 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7C, symbols). The harmonic responses yield an annulus tuning curve that reflects the center-surround organization of the receptive field (Kilavik et al, 2003;Kremers et al, 2004). Responses are small for small inner diameter, because the annulus covers both the receptive field center and surround.…”

Section: Model As Illustrated Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7C, open symbols). The harmonic responses to these stimuli yield an annulus tuning curve that reflects the center-surround organization of the receptive field (Kilavik et al, 2003;Kremers et al, 2004). The inner diameter at which this curve reaches the floor (within Ϯ1 SD of the response to a blank stimulus) indicates the size of the receptive field surround (Fig.…”

Section: Spatial Extentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Suppressive Field of Neurons in Lateral Geniculate Nucleus

Bonin¹,

Mante²,

Carandini³

2005

J. Neurosci.

206

243

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The responses of neurons in lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) exhibit powerful suppressive phenomena such as contrast saturation, size tuning, and masking. These phenomena cannot be explained by the classical center-surround receptive field and have been ascribed to a variety of mechanisms, including feedback from cortex. We asked whether these phenomena might all be explained by a single mechanism, contrast gain control, which is inherited from retina and possibly strengthened in thalamus. We formalized an intuitive model of retinal contrast gain control that explicitly predicts gain as a function of local contrast. In the model, the output of the receptive field is divided by the output of a suppressive field, which computes the local root-mean-square contrast. The model provides good fits to LGN responses to a variety of stimuli; with a single set of parameters, it captures saturation, size tuning, and masking. It also correctly predicts that responses to small stimuli grow proportionally with contrast: were it not for the suppressive field, LGN responses would be linear. We characterized the suppressive field and found that it is similar in size to the surround of the classical receptive field (which is eight times larger than commonly estimated), it is not selective for stimulus orientation, and it responds to a wide range of frequencies, including very low spatial frequencies and high temporal frequencies. The latter property is hardly consistent with feedback from cortex. These measurements thoroughly describe the visual properties of contrast gain control in LGN and provide a parsimonious explanation for disparate suppressive phenomena.

show abstract

Section: Model As Illustrated Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spatial Extentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Suppressive Field of Neurons in Lateral Geniculate Nucleus

Bonin¹,

Mante²,

Carandini³

2005

J. Neurosci.

206

243

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assuming that the linear addition is also applicable to describe the perceived flicker strength, the psychophysical data were fitted by Equation 1 (Kremers et al, 2004;Kozyrev et al, 2007):…”

Section: Linear Vector Addition Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateral interactions in visual perception of temporal signals: Cortical and subcortical components.

Teixeira

Silveira

Kremers

2011

Psychology & Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to isolate and investigate subcortical and cortical lateral interactions involved in flicker perception. We quantified the perceived flicker strength (PFS) in the center of a test stimulus which was simultaneously modulated with a surround stimulus (50% Michelson contrast in both stimuli). Subjects were requested to adjust the modulation depth of a separate matching stimulus that was physically identical to the center of the test stimulus but without the surround. Using LCD goggles, synchronized to the frame rate of a CRT screen, the center and surround could be presented monoptically or dichoptically. In the monoptic condition, center-surround interactions can have both subcortical and cortical origins. In the dichoptic condition, center-surround interactions cannot occur in the retina and the LGN, therefore isolating a cortical mechanism. Results revealed both a strong monoptic (subcortical plus cortical) lateral interaction and a weaker dichoptic (cortical) lateral interaction. Subtraction of the dichoptic from the monoptic data revealed a subcortical mechanism of the lateral interaction. While the modulation of the cortical PFS component showed a low-pass temporal-frequency tuning, the modulation of the subcortical PFS component was maximal at 6 Hz. These findings are consistent with two separate temporal channels influencing the monoptic PFS, each with distinct lateral interactions strength and frequency tuning characteristics. We conclude that both subcortical and cortical lateral interactions modulate flicker perception.

show abstract

“…The same physical light may be perceived to be multiple different colors depending on the light surrounding it. The importance of context is well demonstrated when the center or surround varies over time (Christiansen, D'Antona, & Shevell, 2009; D'Antona, Kremers, & Shevell, 2011;Davey, Maddess, & Srinivasan, 1998;De Valois et al, 1986;Krauskopf, Zaidi, & Mandler, 1986;Kremers, Kozyrev, Silveira, & Kilavik, 2004;Kremers & Rimmele, 2007;Rossi & Paradiso, 1996;Shapiro, 2008;Shapiro et al, 2004;Zaidi, Yoshimi, Flanigan, & Canova, 1992). For example, if a steady central region is within a surround that is temporally varying in chromaticity, the steady central region will be perceived as temporally varying in color even though it is physically steady (Autrusseau & Shevell, 2006;De Valois et al, 1986;Krauskopf et al, 1986;Shevell & Cao, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These stimuli can reveal the loci of neural mechanisms underlying contextual effects in perception. For example, the perceived modulation depth of a central light that is temporally varying in luminance is strongly affected by the phase of a surrounding light also varying in luminance at the same temporal frequency (D'Antona et al, 2011;Kremers et al, 2004;Kremers & Rimmele, 2007). The perceived modulation depth of the central light is described by a linear model that combines central and surrounding light stimulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separating monocular and binocular neural mechanisms mediating chromatic contextual interactions

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When seen in isolation, a light that varies in chromaticity over time is perceived to oscillate in color. Perception of that same time-varying light may be altered by a surrounding light that is also temporally varying in chromaticity. The neural mechanisms that mediate these contextual interactions are the focus of this article. Observers viewed a central test stimulus that varied in chromaticity over time within a larger surround that also varied in chromaticity at the same temporal frequency. Center and surround were presented either to the same eye (monocular condition) or to opposite eyes (dichoptic condition) at the same frequency (3.125, 6.25, or 9.375 Hz). Relative phase between center and surround modulation was varied. In both the monocular and dichoptic conditions, the perceived modulation depth of the central light depended on the relative phase of the surround. A simple model implementing a linear combination of center and surround modulation fit the measurements well. At the lowest temporal frequency (3.125 Hz), the surround's influence was virtually identical for monocular and dichoptic conditions, suggesting that at this frequency, the surround's influence is mediated primarily by a binocular neural mechanism. At higher frequencies, the surround's influence was greater for the monocular condition than for the dichoptic condition, and this difference increased with temporal frequency. Our findings show that two separate neural mechanisms mediate chromatic contextual interactions: one binocular and dominant at lower temporal frequencies and the other monocular and dominant at higher frequencies (6-10 Hz).

show abstract

Lateral interactions in the perception of flicker and in the physiology of the lateral geniculate nucleus

Cited by 18 publications

References 59 publications

The Suppressive Field of Neurons in Lateral Geniculate Nucleus

The Suppressive Field of Neurons in Lateral Geniculate Nucleus

Lateral interactions in visual perception of temporal signals: Cortical and subcortical components.

Separating monocular and binocular neural mechanisms mediating chromatic contextual interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About