4.7 Article

Effects of muscarinic and nicotinic receptors on contextual modulation in macaque area V1

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-88044-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. BBSRC [BBS/B/09325]
  2. Wellcome Trust [070380/z/03/z]
  3. MRC [G0700976]
  4. MRC [G0700976] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that environmental context affects the perception and neuronal sensitivity to image elements in visual scenes, mediated through lateral interactions between neurons in the primary visual cortex and feedback from higher visual areas. Blocking muscarinic or nicotinic receptors reduces neuronal contrast sensitivity but does not systematically affect flanker interactions.
Context affects the salience and visibility of image elements in visual scenes. Collinear flankers can enhance or decrease the perceptual and neuronal sensitivity to flanked stimuli. These effects are mediated through lateral interactions between neurons in the primary visual cortex (area V1), in conjunction with feedback from higher visual areas. The strength of lateral interactions is affected by cholinergic neuromodulation. Blockade of muscarinic receptors should increase the strength of lateral intracortical interactions, while nicotinic blockade should reduce thalamocortical feed-forward drive. Here we test this proposal through local iontophoretic application of the muscarinic receptor antagonist scopolamine and the nicotinic receptor antagonist mecamylamine, while recording single cells in parafoveal representations in awake fixating macaque V1. Collinear flankers generally reduced neuronal contrast sensitivity. Muscarinic and nicotinic receptor blockade equally reduced neuronal contrast sensitivity. Contrary to our hypothesis, flanker interactions were not systematically affected by either receptor blockade.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available