2015
DOI: 10.1038/srep07734
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Topographical Arrangement of Cutoff Spatial Frequencies across Lower and Upper Visual Fields in Mouse V1

Abstract: The visual response to spatial frequency (SF), a characteristic of spatial structure across position in space, is of particular importance for animal survival. A natural challenge for rodents is to detect predators as early as possible while foraging. Whether neurons in mouse primary visual cortex (V1) are functionally organized to meet this challenge remains unclear. Combining intrinsic signal optical imaging and single-unit recording, we found that the cutoff SF was much greater for neurons whose receptive f… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
(128 reference statements)
4
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The average cut-off SF of the NSFT mice (0.39 ± 0.07 cpd) was significantly higher than those of the control (0.27 ± 0.04 cpd) and naïve mice (0.27 ± 0.06 cpd; Tukey post hoc test, both p = 0.001; Figure 5B ). The threshold value measured by optical imaging was consistent with that of our previous study ( Zhang et al, 2015 ), which was lower than that determined by behavioral measurements. Therefore, we plotted the behavioral VA and its cut-off SF in V1 for each mouse, which showed that the behavioral VAs were correlated with the cut-off SFs of V1 in all of the control and NSFT mice ( Figure 5D ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The average cut-off SF of the NSFT mice (0.39 ± 0.07 cpd) was significantly higher than those of the control (0.27 ± 0.04 cpd) and naïve mice (0.27 ± 0.06 cpd; Tukey post hoc test, both p = 0.001; Figure 5B ). The threshold value measured by optical imaging was consistent with that of our previous study ( Zhang et al, 2015 ), which was lower than that determined by behavioral measurements. Therefore, we plotted the behavioral VA and its cut-off SF in V1 for each mouse, which showed that the behavioral VAs were correlated with the cut-off SFs of V1 in all of the control and NSFT mice ( Figure 5D ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Intrinsic signal optical imaging was performed in the mouse visual cortex as described in our recent study ( Zhang et al, 2015 ). Mice were initially anesthetized with ketamine (0.1 mg/g) and xylazine (0.01 mg/g) mixture (i.p.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For humans in particular, two-legged locomotion likely requires especially rapid and detailed peripheral monitoring of the LVF ( Buckley et al, 2011 ; Marigold & Patla, 2008 ; Timmis et al, 2009 ). More detailed neural representations highlighting specific environmental features in circumscribed visual field locations may thus have evolved to solve particular problems ( Quek & Finkbeiner, 2014 ; Zhang et al, 2015 ). However, such more detailed representations may not be necessary in all environmental settings and can sometimes even be detrimental ( Carrasco & Yeshurun, 1998 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it should be noted that this separation in macaque depends strongly on eccentricity, which we did not account for here. Although mice do not have a fovea, there are differences in retinal ganglion density that may create differences in tuning across visual space (Bleckert et al, 2014 ) and very recently, Zhang et al ( 2015 ) reported that the spatial frequency cut-offs of mouse V1 neurons with receptive fields in the upper visual field (where mouse aerial predators are likely to lurk) is substantially higher than that of V1 neurons with receptive fields in the lower visual field. It should further be noted that overlap in the spatial and temporal tuning properties has also been reported in the visual pathways of squirrels (Van Hooser et al, 2003 ), rats (Hale et al, 1979 ), rabbits (Swadlow and Weyand, 1985 ), cats (Bullier and Norton, 1979 ), galagos (Irvin et al, 1993 ) and even macaques (Hicks et al, 1983 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%