2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.05.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Synaptic Rectification Controls Nonlinear Spatial Integration of Natural Visual Inputs

Abstract: Summary A central goal in the study of any sensory system is to predict neural responses to complex inputs, especially those encountered during natural stimulation. Nowhere is the transformation from stimulus to response better understood than the vertebrate retina. Nevertheless, descriptions of retinal computation are largely based on stimulation using artificial visual stimuli, and it is unclear how these descriptions map onto the encoding of natural stimuli. We demonstrate that nonlinear spatial integration… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

13
148
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(172 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
13
148
1
Order By: Relevance
“…RGC firing rates showed a modulation for both white noise and the null stimulus that was highly reproducible across repeats ( Figure 6C, D), indicating that the visual inputs are not integrated linearly across the RF. Note that the null stimulus modulated OFF parasol cells more strongly than ON parasol cells, consistent with previous results obtained with white noise and natural scene stimuli (Chichilnisky & Kalmar 2002, Demb et al, 2001, Turner & Rieke 2016; henceforth, analysis is focused on OFF parasol cells.…”
Section: Subunit Model Explains Spatial Nonlinearities Revealed By Nusupporting
confidence: 87%
“…RGC firing rates showed a modulation for both white noise and the null stimulus that was highly reproducible across repeats ( Figure 6C, D), indicating that the visual inputs are not integrated linearly across the RF. Note that the null stimulus modulated OFF parasol cells more strongly than ON parasol cells, consistent with previous results obtained with white noise and natural scene stimuli (Chichilnisky & Kalmar 2002, Demb et al, 2001, Turner & Rieke 2016; henceforth, analysis is focused on OFF parasol cells.…”
Section: Subunit Model Explains Spatial Nonlinearities Revealed By Nusupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Consistent with this hypothesis, direction selectivity of the On response of DSGCs in Gabra2 KO mice is normal when the background is homogeneous but deteriorates as soon as white noise is introduced into the background. These findings represent an intriguing example in which additional neural mechanisms are recruited when the visual stimulus more closely resembles natural viewing conditions, but simpler visual stimuli involving only the feature of interest may not reveal the functional significance of these mechanisms (David et al, 2004; Felsen and Dan, 2005; Felsen et al, 2005; Turner and Rieke, 2016). A notable analogy has been reported in the visual cortex: a prominent inhibitory component in the receptive field of visual cortical neurons is uniquely revealed by more complex natural stimuli but is not observed with synthetic sinusoidal gratings (David et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Tissue sensitivity was assessed at the beginning of each experiment by ensuring ON parasol RGCs responded to a full-field, 5% contrast, 4 Hz temporally-modulated spot. 74 ON parasol RGCs lack significant S-cone input and were also used to validate the S-cone isolating stimuli. 32 For each subsequent RGC encountered, the polarity (ON, OFF or ON-OFF) and cell type were first determined by spots presenting high contrast luminance increments and decrements from a photopic mean light level.…”
Section: Recording Protocolmentioning
confidence: 99%