scholarly journals Gaba-antagonists alter spatial summation in receptive field centres of rod- but not cone-drive cat retinal ganglion Y-cells.

1981 ◽  
Vol 320 (1) ◽  
pp. 303-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
A W Kirby ◽  
D E Schweitzer-Tong
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
Gaba Antagonists ◽  
Y Cells

Receptive-field properties of Q retinal ganglion cells of the cat

1995 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.B. Troy ◽  
D.E. Schweitzer-Tong ◽  
Ch. Enroth-Cugell
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Retinal Ganglion Cells ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Quantitative Description ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
Nonlinear Behavior ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
Temporal Properties ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Y Cells

AbstractThe goal of this work was to provide a detailed quantitative description of the recepii ve-field properties of one of the types of rarely encountered retinal ganglion cells of cat; the cell named the Q-cell by Enroth-Cugell et al. (1983). Quantitative comparisons are made between the discharge statistics and between the spatial receptive properties of Q-cells and the most common of cat retinal ganglion cells, the X-cells. The center-surround receptive field of the Q-cell is modeled here quantitatively and the typical Q-cell is described. The temporal properties of the Q-cell receptive field were also investigated and the dynamics of the center mechanism of the Q-cell modeled quantitatively. In addition, the response vs. contrast relationship for a Q-cell at optimal spatial and temporal frequencies is shown, and Q-cells are also demonstrated to have nonlinear spatial summation somewhat like that exhibited by Y-cells, although much higher contrasts are required to reveal this nonlinear behavior. Finally, the relationship between Q-cells and Barlow and Levick's (1969) luminance units was investigated and it was found that most Q-cells could not be luminance units.

scholarly journals Spatial receptive field properties of rat retinal ganglion cells

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 403-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
WALTER F. HEINE ◽  
CHRISTOPHER L. PASSAGLIA
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Retinal Ganglion Cells ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Cell Types ◽  
Quantitative Information ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
X And Y Cells ◽  
Y Cells

AbstractThe rat is a popular animal model for vision research, yet there is little quantitative information about the physiological properties of the cells that provide its brain with visual input, the retinal ganglion cells. It is not clear whether rats even possess the full complement of ganglion cell types found in other mammals. Since such information is important for evaluating rodent models of visual disease and elucidating the function of homologous and heterologous cells in different animals, we recorded from rat ganglion cells in vivo and systematically measured their spatial receptive field (RF) properties using spot, annulus, and grating patterns. Most of the recorded cells bore likeness to cat X and Y cells, exhibiting brisk responses, center-surround RFs, and linear or nonlinear spatial summation. The others resembled various types of mammalian W cell, including local-edge-detector cells, suppressed-by-contrast cells, and an unusual type with an ON–OFF surround. They generally exhibited sluggish responses, larger RFs, and lower responsiveness. The peak responsivity of brisk-nonlinear (Y-type) cells was around twice that of brisk-linear (X-type) cells and several fold that of sluggish cells. The RF size of brisk-linear and brisk-nonlinear cells was indistinguishable, with average center and surround diameters of 5.6 ± 1.3 and 26.4 ± 11.3 deg, respectively. In contrast, the center diameter of recorded sluggish cells averaged 12.8 ± 7.9 deg. The homogeneous RF size of rat brisk cells is unlike that of cat X and Y cells, and its implication regarding the putative roles of these two ganglion cell types in visual signaling is discussed.

Postnatal development of receptive field surround inhibition in kitten dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus

1986 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 523-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. S. Tootle ◽  
M. J. Friedlander
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Lateral Geniculate Nucleus ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
Optic Chiasm ◽  
Dorsal Lateral Geniculate Nucleus ◽  
Surround Inhibition ◽  
Physiological Properties ◽  
Y Cells ◽  
Dorsal Lateral Geniculate ◽  
Stimulation Of

We recorded the responses to visual stimulation of single neurons in the A-layers of the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (LGNd) of 4- to 5-wk-old kittens and adult cats. Visual stimuli were generated on a cathode-ray tube (CRT) display and consisted of circular spots and annuli whose contrast was twice the threshold for each neuron and was modulated about a background luminance of 28 cd/m2 at 0.5 Hz. Neural responses were collected as interspike intervals and displayed as instantaneous firing rates for individual trials. From the responses to a series of sizes of spot stimuli, area-response functions were constructed and used to derive a quantitative measure of the strength of the receptive field (RF) surround inhibition of each neuron, the spatial density minimum ([SDmin[). To separate neural from optical factors that affect measurements of surround inhibition, published values for the posterior nodal distances of the kitten and adult eye were used to scale stimuli in terms of the retinal area subtended. Of 153 kitten and 95 adult LGNd neurons studied, the responses to a complete series of spot stimuli of different sizes (areas) were obtained for 52 kitten neurons [44 with linear spatial summation (L) and 8 with nonlinear spatial summation (NL)] and 45 adult (24 X-and 21 Y-) neurons. In addition, intracellular recordings were made from 30 of the kitten neurons that were filled iontophoretically with horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and were evaluated structurally. In the adult, neurons were classified as X-or Y-cells on the basis of a battery of physiological properties, including linearity of spatial summation, latency to electrical stimulation of the optic chiasm, and ability to respond reliably to rapidly moving stimuli. Kitten neuronal responses allowed them to be clearly identified as exhibiting linear or nonlinear spatial summation, but application of additional criteria produced ambiguous results for classification into X-or Y-categories. Kitten L or NL neurons showed differences typical of adult X-and Y-cells on some [e.g., RF center size (P less than 0.01)] but not other [e.g., latency to stimulation of optic chiasm (P greater than 0.40)] properties. In addition, by direct comparison of morphological features with these physiological responses, some kitten cells with adult X-cell physiological properties on these tests were found to have typical adult Y-cell somadendritic structure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Velocity tuning of cells in dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus and retina of the cat

1983 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 1393-1414 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. J. Frishman ◽  
D. E. Schweitzer-Tong ◽  
E. B. Goldstein
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
Stimulus Strength ◽  
Tuning Curves ◽  
Field Center ◽  
Lateral Geniculate ◽  
X And Y Cells ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Y Cells ◽  
Receptive Field Center

Velocity tuning curves were measured for on-center cells in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat using a stimulus approximately the height and one-fourth the width of the hand-plotted receptive-field center. The standard stimulus strength was 1 log unit above the mesopic background luminance. Lateral geniculate Y-cells had significantly higher preferred velocities than geniculate X-cells when cells with receptive fields having the same range of retinal eccentricities were compared. Preferred velocity increased for both classes of cells as a function of retinal eccentricity. For all geniculate cells, preferred velocity increased with stimulus strength, showing an approximately threefold increase in preferred velocity for each log unit of stimulus strength. Preferred velocity was measured for on-center retinal ganglion cells with receptive fields at the same range of retinal eccentricities as the geniculate sample and under the same stimulus conditions. Preferred velocities of retinal ganglion Y-cells were significantly higher than those of ganglion X-cells, and as for geniculate cells, preferred velocities increased with increasing stimulus strength. However, the classes were better separated in the geniculate than in the retina; with geniculate X-cells having lower preferred velocities than retinal X-cells, and the geniculate Y-cells having higher preferred velocities than retinal Y-cells. For retinal ganglion cells, smaller receptive-field center sizes of the X-cells than the Y-cells could account in large part for the lower preferred velocities of the X-cells. However, for geniculate cells, differences in receptive-field center size could not account as well for the differences in preferred velocity between X- and Y-cells. Furthermore, field size differences could not account for the differences in preferred velocity between ganglion and geniculate cells of the same functional class. Experiments comparing responses to moving stimuli and flashed stationary stimuli show that stimuli moving at high velocities are in effect equivalent to brief-duration flashes, and responses are governed by the same laws of temporal summation in both cases. When velocity tuning curves were measured with long bars that enhanced peripheral inhibition, geniculate X- and Y-cells were better separated than ganglion X- and Y-cells, not only with respect to preferred velocity but also, with respect to velocity selectivity (width of the velocity tuning curve) and differential velocity sensitivity (slope of the leg of the velocity tuning curves ascending from low velocities to the peak).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

scholarly journals Receptive field mechanisms of cat X and Y retinal ganglion cells.

1979 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
J D Victor ◽  
R M Shapley
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Spatial Frequency ◽  
Frequency Response ◽  
Retinal Ganglion Cells ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
First Order ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Y Cells

We investigated receptive field properties of cat retinal ganglion cells with visual stimuli which were sinusoidal spatial gratings amplitude modulated in time by a sum of sinusoids. Neural responses were analyzed into the Fourier components at the input frequencies and the components at sum and difference frequencies. The first-order frequency response of X cells had a marked spatial phase and spatial frequency dependence which could be explained in terms of linear interactions between center and surround mechanisms in the receptive field. The second-order frequency response of X cells was much smaller than the first-order frequency response at all spatial frequencies. The spatial phase and spatial frequency dependence of the first-order frequency response in Y cells in some ways resembled that of X cells. However, the Y first-order response declined to zero at a much lower spatial frequency than in X cells. Furthermore, the second-order frequency response was larger in Y cells; the second-order frequency components became the dominant part of the response for patterns of high spatial frequency. This implies that the receptive field center and surround mechanisms are physiologically quite different in Y cells from those in X cells, and that the Y cells also receive excitatory drive from an additional nonlinear receptive field mechanism.

Spatial receptive-field structure of cat retinal W cells

1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 765-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael H. Rowe ◽  
James F. Cox
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Spatial Resolution ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Second Harmonic ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
Field Structure ◽  
Contrast Gain ◽  
Frequency Domain Methods ◽  
Y Cells

AbstractWe have used frequency-domain methods to characterize the spatial receptive-field structure of cat retinal W cells. For most ON- and OFF-center tonic and phasic W cells, measurements of responsivity to drifting gratings at various spatial frequencies could be adequately described by a difference-of-Gaussians (DOG) function, consistent with the presence of center and surround mechanisms that are approximately Gaussian in shape and whose signals are combined additively. Estimates of the responsivity of the center mechanisms of tonic and phasic W cells were similar, but both were significantly lower than the corresponding values for X or Y cells. The width of the center mechanisms of tonic W cells, phasic W cells, and Y cells did not differ significantly from each other, but all were significantly larger than the width of X-cell centers. Surround parameters did not vary significantly among the four groups of ganglion cells. Measurements of contrast gain in both tonic and phasic W cells gave values that were significantly lower than in X or Y cells.Virtually all of the phasic W cells in our sample displayed evidence of spatial non-linearities in their receptive fields, in the form of either d.c. responses to drifting sine-wave gratings or second harmonic responses to counterphased gratings. The spatial resolution of the mechanism underlying these nonlinearities was typically higher than that of the center mechanism of these cells. Most tonic W cells exhibited linear spatial summation, although a subset gave strong second harmonic responses to counterphased gratings.Spatial-responsivity measurements for most ON-OFF and directionally selective W cells were not adequately described by DOG functions. These cells did, however, show evidence of spatial nonlinearities similar to those seen in phasic W cells. Suppressed-by-contrast cells gave both modulated and unmodulated responses to drifting gratings which both appeared to involved rectification, but which differed from each other in both spatial resolution and contrast gain.These data confirm earlier reports that the receptive fields of tonic and most ON- or OFF-center phasic W cells appear to include classical center and surround mechanisms. However, the receptive fields of some phasic cells, as well as ON-OFF and directionally selective W cells may have quite different structures. Our results also suggest that phasic, ON-OFF, directionally selective, suppressed-by-contrast, and a subset of tonic W cells may all receive nonlinear inputs with characteristics similar to those described in the receptive fields of retinal Y cells. If so, this has important implications for identifying and understanding the presynaptic circuitry of W cells, as well as the nature of their output to both telencephalic and midbrain visual targets.

Spatiospectral properties of goldfish retinal ganglion cells

1989 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 1140-1148 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bilotta ◽  
I. Abramov
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Spatial Frequency ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
Relative Sensitivity ◽  
Sinusoidal Grating ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Sinusoidal Gratings ◽  
Center Cell

1. Responses of single ganglion cells from isolated goldfish retinas were recorded during presentation of various spatial and spectral stimuli. Each cell was classified along several spatial [spatial summation class, spatial contrast sensitivity function (CSF), and response to contrast] and spectral (Red-ON, Red-OFF or Red-ON/OFF, and spectral opponency/nonopponency) dimensions. 2. Linearity of spatial summation was determined from responses to contrast-reversal sinusoidal gratings positioned at various locations across the receptive field of the cell. CSFs were derived from responses to sinusoidal gratings of various spatial frequencies and contrasts, drifting across the cell's receptive field at a rate of 4 Hz. Response to contrast was determined from responses to variations in contrast of a sinusoidal grating of optimal spatial frequency. Spectral classifications were based on responses to monochromatic stimuli presented separately to the center and surround portions of the receptive field. 3. Linearity of spatial summation (X-, Y-, and W-like) was independent of the cell's spectral properties; for example, an X-like cell could be classified as either a Red-ON, Red-OFF, or Red-ON/OFF center cell and as spectrally opponent or nonopponent. 4. There were differences in response to contrast across spectral categories. Red-OFF center cells were very sensitive to contrast compared with Red-ON center cells. Spectrally nonopponent cells were more responsive to contrast than spectrally opponent cells. 5. There were dramatic differences across the spectral categories in relative sensitivity to low spatial frequency stimuli; however, the spatial resolution (i.e., sensitivity to high spatial frequencies) of each spectral classification appeared to be similar.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Correlated firing of cat retinal ganglion cells. I. Spontaneously active inputs to X- and Y-cells

1983 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. N. Mastronarde
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Retinal Ganglion Cells ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Optic Tract ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
X And Y Cells ◽  
X Cells ◽  
Y Cells ◽  
Shared Inputs

1. The shared inputs to cat retinal ganglion cells have been investigated by studying correlations in the maintained firing of neighboring ganglion cells. The firing of one cell was recorded from its axon in the optic tract, while that of a neighboring cell was simultaneously recorded with a second electrode in the retina. The recorded cells were of the X- or Y-type and viewed a uniform screen having a luminance of 10 cd/m2. 2. Ganglion cells with overlapping receptive-field centers showed two basic forms of correlated firing: if they had the same center sign (both on-center or both off-center), then they tended to fire at the same time, as shown by a peak in their cross-correlogram; but if they had opposite center signs (an on- and and off-center cell), they tended not to fire at the same time, as shown by a well, or dip, in their cross-correlogram. 3. Both of these tendencies were strongest for cells that were close together and did not appear for cells with nonoverlapping receptive-field centers. The strongest correlations were between neighboring Y-cells, cells with large fields, and the weakest were between X-cells, cells with small fields. In general, the strength of the correlations depended primarily on the area of the overlap between fields. 4. These correlations in maintained firing appear to be principally or entirely caused by shared inputs to the ganglion cells from more distal retinal neurons. The signals from these distal neurons appear to have strong, brief (4-8 ms), well-defined effects on ganglion cells, which are observed even in the absence of a visual stimulus. The inputs responsible for the correlated firing are thus referred to as spontaneously active inputs or simply as active inputs. 5. An analysis of the features in the various types of cross-correlograms supports the following statements about these spontaneously active inputs. a) There are two types of active inputs: inputs excitatory to on-center cells and simultaneously inhibitory to off-center center cells and inputs excitatory to off-center cells and simultaneously inhibitory to on-center cells. b) The active inputs of each type provide excitation to both X- and Y-cells of one center sign and inhibition to both X- and Y-cells of the other center sign. There is no evidence for a special class of more selective inputs providing input only to X-cells or only to Y-cells. c) Active inputs account for the majority (about 80%) of the spikes in the maintained activity of Y-cells but only a small fraction (about 15%) of the spikes in the maintained activity of X-cells. 6. A likely source of the active input signals appears to be spiking amacrine cells with a low rate of spontaneous activity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document