The shift-effect in retinal ganglion cells of the rhesus monkey

Krüger, Jürgen; Fischer, Burkhart; Barth, R.

doi:10.1007/bf00238025

Cited by 46 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is physiological evidence suggesting that the inputs to parasol cells from amacrine cells have other functions, instead. Parasol cells respond to stimuli outside their classical receptive fields (Krü ger et al, 1975), and studies in other mammalian retinas suggest that these effects are mediated by amacrine cells (Demb et al, 1999). There is psychophysical evidence suggesting that parasol cells are selectively inhibited during saccades in humans (Burr et al, 1994).…”

Section: Inputs From Amacrine Cellsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Synaptic input to OFF parasol ganglion cells in macaque retina

Bordt

Hoshi

Yamada

et al. 2006

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Neurobiotin-injected OFF parasol cell from midperipheral macaque retina was studied by reconstruction of serial ultrathin sections and compared with ON parasol cells studied previously. In most respects, the synaptic inputs to the two subtypes were similar. Only a few of the amacrine cell processes that provided input to the labeled OFF parasol ganglion cell dendrites made or received inputs within the series, and none of these interactions were with the bipolar cells or other amacrine cells presynaptic to the OFF parasol cell. These findings suggest that the direct inhibitory input to OFF parasol cells originates from other areas of the retina. OFF parasol cells were known to receive inputs from two types of diffuse bipolar cells. To identify candidates for the presynaptic amacrine cells, OFF parasol cells were labeled with Lucifer yellow by using a juxtacellular labeling technique, and amacrine cells known to costratify with them were labeled via immunofluorescent methods. Appositions were observed with amacrine cells containing immunoreactive calretinin, parvalbumin, choline acetylatransferase, and G6-Gly, a cholecystokinin precursor. These findings suggest that the inhibitory input to parasol cells conveys information about several different attributes of visual stimuli and, particularly, about their global properties.

show abstract

Section: Inputs From Amacrine Cellsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Synaptic input to OFF parasol ganglion cells in macaque retina

Bordt

Hoshi

Yamada

et al. 2006

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in agreement with the work of Bonin et al (2005) who show that this is also true for low spatial frequencies. A possible exception to this colocalization principle is the periphery effect (McIlwain 1964), modulation from remote visual field stimulation, found in the retina and LGN of cats (Fischer and Kruger 1974;Kruger and Fischer 1973;McIlwain 1964), and, to a lesser degree, in primates (Kruger 1977;Kruger et al 1975;Solomon et al 2006). The periphery effect is predominantly found in cells that respond transiently and with short latencies: Y-cells in the cat retina and LGN (Cleland et al 1971;Ikeda and Wright 1972;McIlwain 1964) and M-cells in the primate (Kruger 1977;Solomon et al 2006).…”

Section: Spatial Extentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suppression at High Spatial Frequencies in the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus of the Cat

Nolt¹,

Kumbhani²,

Palmer³

2007

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spatial weighting functions of both retinal and lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) X-cell receptive fields have been viewed as the difference of two Gaussians (DOG). We focus on a particular shortcoming of the DOG model, that is, suppression of responses of LGN cells at spatial frequencies above those to which the classical receptive field surround is responsive. By simultaneously recording one of the retinal ganglion cell (RGC) inputs (S-potentials) to an LGN cell, we find that half of this suppression at high spatial frequencies arises from the retinal input and that suppression in LGN cells is greater than that in RGCs, regardless of spatial frequency. We also inactivated the ipsilateral visual cortex and show that one quarter of the suppression at high spatial frequencies arises from corticothalamic feedback. We show that this suppression at high spatial frequencies is colocalized with the classical surround, is not dependent on the relative orientation of the center and surround stimuli, and that the cortical component of this suppression is divisive. We propose that the role of this suppression at high spatial frequencies is to restrict the response to large stimuli composed of high spatial frequencies. I N T R O D U C T I O NSince the classic studies of Kuffler (1953) and Barlow (1953), the spatial weighting functions of both retinal and lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) X-cell receptive fields have been viewed as the difference of two Gaussians (DOG) (Rodieck 1965). The DOG model consists of a strong and narrow central Gaussian and a weak but broad surround Gaussian. This linear model accounts for many properties of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) and LGN cells, but numerous authors have described excitatory and/or suppressive effects in LGN cells that are not accounted for by the classic DOG model (Alitto and Usrey 2003;Cudeiro and Sillito 1996;Levick et al. 1972;Murphy and Sillito 1987;Solomon et al. 2002;Webb et al. 2002).Many of these effects are attributed to a "nonclassical" receptive field and have proven to be controversial. Several authors have proposed that these effects are spatially localized to a region outside of the classical receptive field (e.g., Webb et al. 2002), although a recent study suggests that they are colocalized with the classical receptive field (Bonin et al. 2005). Sillito and colleagues described suppression in LGN cells that was dependent on the relative orientation of grating stimuli presented to the center and surround of the receptive field (Cudeiro and Sillito 1996;Sillito et al. 1993). They also showed that the suppression found with isooriented, but not orthogonally oriented, stimuli was partially released on ablation of visual cortex. Others have failed to see these orientation effects in the intact animal (Bonin et al. 2005;Solomon et al. 2002;Webb et al. 2002) and Webb et al. (2002) reported no differential release of suppression after cortical ablation. Some studies have attributed changes in the gain of the classical receptive field to stimuli in the nonclassical...

show abstract

“…The result is in line with the available evidence that both the shift effect (Derrington, 1984;Felisberti & Derrington, 1997) and saccades (Burr et al, 1994) reduce sensitivity to low spatial-frequency luminance targets. The shift stimulus which elicits the inhibitory effects described here is a smaller, intermittent version of the shift stimulus which causes transient excitation in retinal ganglion cells (Krüger & Fischer, 1973;Krüger et al, 1975). This makes it surprising that the shift effect is inhibitory rather than excitatory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Peripheral shift reduces visual sensitivity in cat geniculate neurones

Derrington

Felisberti

1998

Vis Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sudden displacement of the retinal image during a saccade raises the visual threshold of human observers to foveal stimuli. The fall in visual sensitivity observed during this phenomenon, known as saccadic suppression, seems to occur very early in the visual processing chain. The lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) is a likely locus for the multiple retinal and extraretinal interactions occurring during saccadic eye movements, therefore we used the responses of relay cells of adult cats to simulate a pychophysical experiment. We first measured the responses of X and Y relay cells (27 X and 13 Y) to central spots of optimal size and different contrasts. The spots were presented either alone or time locked with the rapid movement of a large, high-contrast peripheral pattern, referred to as shift. We measured the percentage of trials on which the relay cell fired more spikes when the spot (contrast: 0.03-1.0) was present than when it was absent. In experiments with human observers the task was to indicate, by a keypress, which of two otherwise identical temporal intervals contained the spot. The shift reduces the sensitivity (raises the contrast threshold) of neurones in the cat relay cells to brief, stationary targets presented to the receptive-field center. The suppression of visual sensitivity is significantly greater in Y cells than in X cells (average sensitivity ratios 5.6 6 5.4 in Y cells, 1.59 6 0.9 in X cells: P Ͻ 0.001, U test). The shift also reduces the sensitivity of human observers to the same target. This suggests that the LGN is a potential locus for the modulation of visual responses that leads to saccadic suppression.

show abstract

The shift-effect in retinal ganglion cells of the rhesus monkey

Cited by 46 publications

References 7 publications

Synaptic input to OFF parasol ganglion cells in macaque retina

Synaptic input to OFF parasol ganglion cells in macaque retina

Suppression at High Spatial Frequencies in the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus of the Cat

Peripheral shift reduces visual sensitivity in cat geniculate neurones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About