Laminar differences in the spatiotemporal structure of simple cell receptive fields in cat area 17

A. Murthy, Allen L. Humphrey, Alan B Saul, J. C. Feidler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Previous studies of cat visual cortex have shown that the spatiotemporal (S-T) structure of simple cell receptive fields correlates with direction selectivity. However, great heterogeneity exists in the relationship and this has implications for models. Here we report a laminar basis for some of the heterogeneity. S-T structure and direction selectivity were measured in 101 cells using stationary counterphasing and drifting gratings, respectively. Two procedures were used to assess S-T structure and its relation to direction selectivity. In the first, the S-T orientations of receptive fields were quantified by fitting response temporal phase versus stimulus spatial phase data. In the second procedure, conventional linear predictions of direction selectivity were computed from the amplitudes and phases of responses to stationary gratings. Extracellular recording locations were reconstructed histologically. Among direction-selective cells, S-T orientation was greatest in layer 4B and it correlated well (r = 0.76) with direction selectivity. In layer 6, S-T orientation was uniformly low, overlapping little with layer 4B, and it was not correlated with directional tuning. Layer 4A was intermediate in S-T orientation and its relation (r = 0.46) to direction selectivity. The same laminar patterns were observed using conventional linear predictions. The patterns do not reflect laminar differences in direction selectivity since the layers were equivalent in directional tuning. We also evaluated a model of linear spatiotemporal summation followed by a static nonlinear amplification (exponent model) to account for direction selectivity. The values of the exponents were estimated from differences between linearly predicted and actual amplitude modulations to counterphasing gratings. Comparing these exponents with another exponent-that required to obtain perfect matches between linearly predicted and measured directional tuning-indicates that an exponent model largely accounts for direction selectivity in most cells in layer 4, particularly layer 4B, but not in layer 6. Dynamic nonlinearities seem essential for cells in layer 6. We suggest that these laminar differences may partly reflect the differential involvement of geniculocortical and intracortical mechanisms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)239-256
Number of pages18
JournalVisual Neuroscience
Volume15
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cats
Direction compound
Visual Cortex
Linear Models

Keywords

  • Direction selectivity
  • Laminar location
  • Linear summation
  • Nonlinear responses
  • Receptive fields
  • Response timing
  • Visual cortex

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Sensory Systems

Cite this

Laminar differences in the spatiotemporal structure of simple cell receptive fields in cat area 17. / Murthy, A.; Humphrey, Allen L.; Saul, Alan B; Feidler, J. C.

In: Visual Neuroscience, Vol. 15, No. 2, 01.03.1998, p. 239-256.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Murthy, A. ; Humphrey, Allen L. ; Saul, Alan B ; Feidler, J. C. / Laminar differences in the spatiotemporal structure of simple cell receptive fields in cat area 17. In: Visual Neuroscience. 1998 ; Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 239-256.
@article{648703ce167646b9ab066780e4678679,
title = "Laminar differences in the spatiotemporal structure of simple cell receptive fields in cat area 17",
abstract = "Previous studies of cat visual cortex have shown that the spatiotemporal (S-T) structure of simple cell receptive fields correlates with direction selectivity. However, great heterogeneity exists in the relationship and this has implications for models. Here we report a laminar basis for some of the heterogeneity. S-T structure and direction selectivity were measured in 101 cells using stationary counterphasing and drifting gratings, respectively. Two procedures were used to assess S-T structure and its relation to direction selectivity. In the first, the S-T orientations of receptive fields were quantified by fitting response temporal phase versus stimulus spatial phase data. In the second procedure, conventional linear predictions of direction selectivity were computed from the amplitudes and phases of responses to stationary gratings. Extracellular recording locations were reconstructed histologically. Among direction-selective cells, S-T orientation was greatest in layer 4B and it correlated well (r = 0.76) with direction selectivity. In layer 6, S-T orientation was uniformly low, overlapping little with layer 4B, and it was not correlated with directional tuning. Layer 4A was intermediate in S-T orientation and its relation (r = 0.46) to direction selectivity. The same laminar patterns were observed using conventional linear predictions. The patterns do not reflect laminar differences in direction selectivity since the layers were equivalent in directional tuning. We also evaluated a model of linear spatiotemporal summation followed by a static nonlinear amplification (exponent model) to account for direction selectivity. The values of the exponents were estimated from differences between linearly predicted and actual amplitude modulations to counterphasing gratings. Comparing these exponents with another exponent-that required to obtain perfect matches between linearly predicted and measured directional tuning-indicates that an exponent model largely accounts for direction selectivity in most cells in layer 4, particularly layer 4B, but not in layer 6. Dynamic nonlinearities seem essential for cells in layer 6. We suggest that these laminar differences may partly reflect the differential involvement of geniculocortical and intracortical mechanisms.",
keywords = "Direction selectivity, Laminar location, Linear summation, Nonlinear responses, Receptive fields, Response timing, Visual cortex",
author = "A. Murthy and Humphrey, {Allen L.} and Saul, {Alan B} and Feidler, {J. C.}",
year = "1998",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0952523898152045",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "239--256",
journal = "Visual Neuroscience",
issn = "0952-5238",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laminar differences in the spatiotemporal structure of simple cell receptive fields in cat area 17

AU - Murthy, A.

AU - Humphrey, Allen L.

AU - Saul, Alan B

AU - Feidler, J. C.

PY - 1998/3/1

Y1 - 1998/3/1

N2 - Previous studies of cat visual cortex have shown that the spatiotemporal (S-T) structure of simple cell receptive fields correlates with direction selectivity. However, great heterogeneity exists in the relationship and this has implications for models. Here we report a laminar basis for some of the heterogeneity. S-T structure and direction selectivity were measured in 101 cells using stationary counterphasing and drifting gratings, respectively. Two procedures were used to assess S-T structure and its relation to direction selectivity. In the first, the S-T orientations of receptive fields were quantified by fitting response temporal phase versus stimulus spatial phase data. In the second procedure, conventional linear predictions of direction selectivity were computed from the amplitudes and phases of responses to stationary gratings. Extracellular recording locations were reconstructed histologically. Among direction-selective cells, S-T orientation was greatest in layer 4B and it correlated well (r = 0.76) with direction selectivity. In layer 6, S-T orientation was uniformly low, overlapping little with layer 4B, and it was not correlated with directional tuning. Layer 4A was intermediate in S-T orientation and its relation (r = 0.46) to direction selectivity. The same laminar patterns were observed using conventional linear predictions. The patterns do not reflect laminar differences in direction selectivity since the layers were equivalent in directional tuning. We also evaluated a model of linear spatiotemporal summation followed by a static nonlinear amplification (exponent model) to account for direction selectivity. The values of the exponents were estimated from differences between linearly predicted and actual amplitude modulations to counterphasing gratings. Comparing these exponents with another exponent-that required to obtain perfect matches between linearly predicted and measured directional tuning-indicates that an exponent model largely accounts for direction selectivity in most cells in layer 4, particularly layer 4B, but not in layer 6. Dynamic nonlinearities seem essential for cells in layer 6. We suggest that these laminar differences may partly reflect the differential involvement of geniculocortical and intracortical mechanisms.

AB - Previous studies of cat visual cortex have shown that the spatiotemporal (S-T) structure of simple cell receptive fields correlates with direction selectivity. However, great heterogeneity exists in the relationship and this has implications for models. Here we report a laminar basis for some of the heterogeneity. S-T structure and direction selectivity were measured in 101 cells using stationary counterphasing and drifting gratings, respectively. Two procedures were used to assess S-T structure and its relation to direction selectivity. In the first, the S-T orientations of receptive fields were quantified by fitting response temporal phase versus stimulus spatial phase data. In the second procedure, conventional linear predictions of direction selectivity were computed from the amplitudes and phases of responses to stationary gratings. Extracellular recording locations were reconstructed histologically. Among direction-selective cells, S-T orientation was greatest in layer 4B and it correlated well (r = 0.76) with direction selectivity. In layer 6, S-T orientation was uniformly low, overlapping little with layer 4B, and it was not correlated with directional tuning. Layer 4A was intermediate in S-T orientation and its relation (r = 0.46) to direction selectivity. The same laminar patterns were observed using conventional linear predictions. The patterns do not reflect laminar differences in direction selectivity since the layers were equivalent in directional tuning. We also evaluated a model of linear spatiotemporal summation followed by a static nonlinear amplification (exponent model) to account for direction selectivity. The values of the exponents were estimated from differences between linearly predicted and actual amplitude modulations to counterphasing gratings. Comparing these exponents with another exponent-that required to obtain perfect matches between linearly predicted and measured directional tuning-indicates that an exponent model largely accounts for direction selectivity in most cells in layer 4, particularly layer 4B, but not in layer 6. Dynamic nonlinearities seem essential for cells in layer 6. We suggest that these laminar differences may partly reflect the differential involvement of geniculocortical and intracortical mechanisms.

KW - Direction selectivity

KW - Laminar location

KW - Linear summation

KW - Nonlinear responses

KW - Receptive fields

KW - Response timing

KW - Visual cortex

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032031425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032031425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0952523898152045

DO - 10.1017/S0952523898152045

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 239

EP - 256

JO - Visual Neuroscience

JF - Visual Neuroscience

SN - 0952-5238

IS - 2

ER -