Visual Spatial Summation in Macaque Geniculocortical Afferents

Sceniak, Michael P.; Chatterjee, Soumya; Callaway, Edward M.

doi:10.1152/jn.00734.2006

Cited by 53 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is noteworthy that we did see some cells in layer 4C with "smaller" far surrounds (predominantly suppressive; Fig. 7, B and C), the sizes of which, however, matched the largest suppressive surround sizes previously reported for macaque LGN afferents (Sceniak et al 2006). It is possible that these unusually large surround fields in the LGN contribute to the generation of the "smaller" far-surround fields we have observed in layer 4C.…”

Section: Near-and Far-surround Facilitationsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The largest suppressive surrounds of these cells were also outside layer 4C, mainly in the upper V1 layers. The few cells showing far-surround facilitation in 4C (n ϭ 2-3) had facilitatory and suppressive surround sizes (3-4.6°radius) coextensive with the largest suppressive surrounds previously reported for the macaque lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) (Sceniak et al 2006); the latter may thus contribute to these smaller "far" surrounds in 4C (see DISCUSSION). The results shown in Fig.…”

Section: Response Properties and Laminar Distribution Of Cells With Fmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…First, primate LGN cells show extra-classical surround suppression and facilitation (Kremers et al 2001;Sceniak et al 2006;Solomon et al 2002) [Sceniak et al (2006), however, did not observe contrast-dependent near-surround facilitation in LGN afferents with corticogeniculate feedback inactivated]. Second, blocking intracortical inhibition in cat V1 does not abolish surround suppression in V1 in patch-size experiments (Ozeki et al 2004).…”

Section: Near-and Far-surround Facilitationmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…These results suggest that although feedforward connections may contribute to near-surround facilitation, they do not contribute to far-surround facilitation or suppression. The restricted spatial spread of geniculocortical axons (Angelucci and Sainsbury 2006) as well as the small size of LGN surrounds (Sceniak et al 2006) are likely to be the main factors limiting the contribution of feedforward connections to the near surround. It is noteworthy that we did see some cells in layer 4C with "smaller" far surrounds (predominantly suppressive; Fig.…”

Section: Near-and Far-surround Facilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Response Facilitation From the “Suppressive” Receptive Field Surround of Macaque V1 Neurons

Ichida¹,

Schwabe²,

Bressloff³

et al. 2007

Journal of Neurophysiology

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ichida JM, Schwabe L, Bressloff PC, Angelucci A. Response facilitation from the "suppressive" receptive field surround of macaque V1 neurons. J Neurophysiol 98: 2168 -2181, 2007. First published August 8, 2007 doi:10.1152/jn.00298.2007. In primary visual cortex (V1), neuronal responses to optimally oriented stimuli in the receptive field (RF) center are usually suppressed by iso-oriented stimuli in the RF surround. The mechanisms and pathways giving rise to surround modulation, a possible neural correlate of perceptual figure-ground segregation, are not yet identified. We previously proposed that highly divergent and fast-conducting top-down feedback connections are the substrate for fast modulation arising from the more distant regions of the surround. We have recently implemented this idea into a recurrent network model (Schwabe et al. 2006). The purpose of this study was to test a crucial prediction of this feedback model, namely that the suppressive "far" surround of V1 neurons can be facilitatory under conditions that weakly activate neurons in the RF center. Using single-unit recordings in macaque V1, we found isoorientation far-surround facilitation when the RF center was driven by a low-contrast stimulus and the far surround by a small annular stimulus. Suppression occurred when the center stimulus contrast or the size of the surround stimulus was increased. This suggests that center-surround interactions result from excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms of similar spatial extent, and that changes in the balance of local excitation and inhibition, induced by surround stimulation, determine whether facilitation or suppression occurs. In layer 4C, the main target of geniculocortical afferents, lacking long-range intracortical connections, far-surround facilitation was rare and large surround fields were absent. This strongly suggests that feedforward connections do not contribute to far-surround modulation and that the latter is generated by intra-cortical mechanisms, likely involving top-down feedback.

show abstract

Section: Near-and Far-surround Facilitationsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Response Properties and Laminar Distribution Of Cells With Fmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Near-and Far-surround Facilitationmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Near-and Far-surround Facilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Response Facilitation From the “Suppressive” Receptive Field Surround of Macaque V1 Neurons

Ichida¹,

Schwabe²,

Bressloff³

et al. 2007

Journal of Neurophysiology

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For drifting gratings firing rate is reported as the first harmonic of the temporal frequency, while mean firing rate is reported for all other, nonperiodic stimuli. Because surround suppression is maximal with high-contrast stimuli (Bonin et al 2005;Sceniak et al 2006) and contrast gain control mechanisms occur across the range of stimulus contrast, including high contrasts (Bonin et al 2005;Felisberti and Derrington 1999;Mante et al 2008;Shapley and Victor 1979b;Solomon et al 2002), all recordings were made while neurons were excited with high-contrast stimuli (100%; Michelson contrast).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surround suppression and temporal processing of visual signals

Alitto

Usrey

2015

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alitto HJ, Usrey WM. Surround suppression and temporal processing of visual signals. J Neurophysiol 113: 2605-2617, 2015. First published February 4, 2015 doi:10.1152/jn.00480.2014.-Extraclassical surround suppression strongly modulates responses of neurons in the retina, lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), and primary visual cortex. Although a great deal is known about the spatial properties of extraclassical suppression and the role it serves in stimulus size tuning, relatively little is known about how extraclassical suppression shapes visual processing in the temporal domain. We recorded the spiking activity of retinal ganglion cells and LGN neurons in the cat to test the hypothesis that extraclassical suppression influences temporal features of visual responses in the early visual system. Our results demonstrate that extraclassical suppression not only shifts the distribution of interspike intervals in a manner that decreases the efficacy of neuronal communication, it also decreases the reliability of neuronal responses to visual stimuli and it decreases the duration of visual responses, an effect that underlies a rightward shift in the temporal frequency tuning of LGN neurons. Taken together, these results reveal a dynamic relationship between extraclassical suppression and the temporal features of neuronal responses.cat; lateral geniculate nucleus; extraclassical suppression; nonlinear receptive field GAIN CONTROL MECHANISMS, including extraclassical surround suppression, are a prominent feature of visual responses in the retina and lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), providing nonlinear modulation to otherwise linear receptive fields (Baccus and Meister

show abstract

Retinal ganglion cell inputs to the koniocellular pathway

Szmajda

Grünert

Martin

2008

J of Comparative Neurology

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand the transmission of sensory signals in visual pathways we studied the morphology and central projection of ganglion cell populations in marmoset monkeys. Retinal ganglion cells were labeled by photofilling following injections of retrograde tracer in the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), or by intracellular injection with neurobiotin. Ganglion cell morphology was analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis. In addition to midget and parasol ganglion cells, this method distinguished three main clusters of wide-field cells that correspond to small bistratified, sparse, and broad thorny cells identified previously. The small bistratified and sparse cells occupy neighboring positions on the hierarchical (linkage distance) tree. These cell types are presumed to carry signals originating in short-wavelength sensitive (S or "blue") cones in the retina. The linkage distance from these putative S-cone pathway ganglion cells to other wide-field cells is similar to the linkage distance from midget cells to parasol cells, suggesting that S-cone cells form a distinct functional subgroup of ganglion cells. Small bistratified cells and large sparse cells were the most commonly labeled wide-field cells following LGN injections in koniocellular layer K3. This is consistent with physiological evidence that the role of this layer includes transmission of S-cone signals to the visual cortex. Other wide-field cell types were also labeled following injections including K3, and other koniocellular LGN layers; these cell types may correspond to "non-blue koniocellular" receptive fields recorded in physiological studies.

show abstract

Visual Spatial Summation in Macaque Geniculocortical Afferents

Cited by 53 publications

References 79 publications

Response Facilitation From the “Suppressive” Receptive Field Surround of Macaque V1 Neurons

Response Facilitation From the “Suppressive” Receptive Field Surround of Macaque V1 Neurons

Surround suppression and temporal processing of visual signals

Retinal ganglion cell inputs to the koniocellular pathway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About