4.7 Article

Laminar Differences in Responses to Naturalistic Texture in Macaque V1 and V2

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 39, 期 49, 页码 9748-9756

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1743-19.2019

关键词

cortical layers; macaque; texture; V1; V2

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [EY04440, EY022428]
  2. Simons Foundation [543019]
  3. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most single units recorded from macaque secondary visual cortex (V2) respond with higher firing rates to synthetic texture images containing naturalistic higher-order statistics than to spectrally matched noise images lacking these statistics. In contrast, few single units in V1 show this property. We explored how the strength and dynamics of response vary across the different layers of visual cortex by recording multiunit (defined as high-frequency power in the local field potential) and gamma-band activity evoked by brief presentations of naturalistic and noise images in V1 and V2 of anesthetized macaque monkeys of both sexes. As previously reported, recordings in V2 showed consistently stronger responses to naturalistic texture than to spectrally matched noise. In contrast to single-unit recordings, V1 multiunit activity showed a preference for images with naturalistic statistics, and in gamma-band activity this preference was comparable across VI and V2. Sensitivity to naturalistic image structure was strongest in the supragranular and infragranular layers of V1, but weak in granular layers, suggesting that it might reflect feedback from V2. Response timing was consistent with this idea. Visual responses appeared first in V1, followed by V2. Sensitivity to naturalistic texture emerged first in V2, followed by the supragranular and infragranular layers of V1, and finally in the granular layers of V1. Our results demonstrate laminar differences in the encoding of higher-order statistics of natural texture, and suggest that this sensitivity first arises in V2 and is fed back to modulate activity in V1.

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