4.7 Article

Visually Evoked Responses in Extrastriate Area MT after Lesions of Striate Cortex in Early Life

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 33, 期 30, 页码 12479-12489

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0844-13.2013

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [491022, 1003906]
  2. Australian Research Council's Special Research Initiative on Bionic Vision and Technology [SRI 100006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lesions of striate cortex [primary visual cortex (V1)] in adult primates result in blindness. In contrast, V1 lesions in neonates typically allow much greater preservation of vision, including, in many human patients, conscious perception. It is presently unknown how this marked functional difference is related to physiological changes in cortical areas that are spared by the lesions. Here we report a study of the middle temporal area (MT) of adult marmoset monkeys that received unilateral V1 lesions within 6 weeks of birth. In contrast with observations after similar lesions in adult monkeys, we found that virtually all neurons in the region of MT that was deprived of V1 inputs showed robust responses to visual stimulation. These responses were very similar to those recorded in neurons with receptive fields outside the lesion projection zones in terms of firing rate, signal-to-noise ratio, and latency. In addition, the normal retinotopic organization of MT was maintained. Nonetheless, we found evidence of a very specific functional deficit: direction selectivity, a key physiological characteristic of MT that is known to be preserved in many cells after adult V1 lesions, was absent. These results demonstrate that lesion-induced reorganization of afferent pathways is sufficient to develop robust visual function in primate extrastriate cortex, high-lighting a likely mechanism for the sparing of vision after neonatal V1 lesions. However, they also suggest that interactions with V1 in early postnatal life are critical for establishing stimulus selectivity in MT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据