4.7 Article

Pathway-Specific Asymmetries between ON and OFF Visual Signals

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 38, 期 45, 页码 9728-9740

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2008-18.2018

关键词

cell types; classification; retina

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Eye Institute [R01-EY-024567, R01-EY-021271, R01-EY-017992, P30-EY-019005]
  2. Karl Kirchgessner Foundation
  3. Whitehall Foundation
  4. Whitehead Scholars Program
  5. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY017992, R01EY021271, R01EY024567, P30EY019005, R01EY027193] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Visual processing is largely organized into ON and OFF pathways that signal stimulus increments and decrements, respectively. These pathways exhibit natural pairings based on morphological and physiological similarities, such as ON and OFF alpha-ganglion cells in the mammalian retina. Several studies have noted asymmetries in the properties of ON and OFF pathways. For example, the spatial receptive fields (RFs) of OFF alpha-cells are systematically smaller than ON alpha-cells. Analysis of natural scenes suggests that these asymmetries are optimal for visual encoding. To test the generality of ON/OFF asymmetries, we measured the spatiotemporal RF properties of multiple RGC types in rat retina. Through a quantitative and serial classification, we identified three functional pairs of ON and OFF RGCs. We analyzed the structure of their RFs and compared spatial integration, temporal integration, and gain across ON and OFF pairs. Similar to previous results from the cat and primate, RGC types with larger spatial RFs exhibited briefer temporal integration and higher gain. However, each pair of ON and OFF RGC types exhibited distinct asymmetric relationships between RF properties, some of which were opposite to the findings of previous reports. These results reveal the functional organization of six RGC types in the rodent retina and indicate that ON/OFF asymmetries are pathway specific.

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