Feedforward, horizontal, and feedback processing in the visual cortex

Lamme, Victor A. F.; Supèr, Hans; Spekreijse, H.

doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(98)80042-1

Cited by 555 publications

(418 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

382

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, ∼100 ms after stimulus onset, V1 neurons increase their firing rate when their receptive field (RF) falls on a figure compared with when it falls on the background (11). This figure-ground modulation (FGM) represents a modulatory influence on the neuronal response from outside the classical RF that correlates well with the percept of the animal (25), and previous studies have pointed to feedback from extrastriate visual areas as the main source of FGM (9,26,27). To discriminate between the effects of glutamate receptor classes, we injected 6-cyano-7-nitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione (CNQX) and APV, which are selective antagonists of the AMPA-R and NMDA-R, respectively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

“…During the later, sustained response phase, V1 neurons fire more strongly if their RF falls on a figure than on a background region. This FGM is thought to arise from feedback from higher visual areas (9,26,27,35) with possible contributions from horizontal connections within area V1 (36). The relative contribution of these potential sources of FGM is not known, and it is, therefore, convenient to refer to these modulatory effects as "recurrent."…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Different glutamate receptors convey feedforward and recurrent processing in macaque V1

Self

Kooijmans²,

Supèr³

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

165

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neurons in the primary visual cortex (V1) receive feedforward input from the thalamus, which shapes receptive-field properties. They additionally receive recurrent inputs via horizontal connections within V1 and feedback from higher visual areas that are thought to be important for conscious visual perception. Here, we investigated what roles different glutamate receptors play in conveying feedforward and recurrent inputs in macaque V1. As a measure of recurrent processing, we used figure-ground modulation (FGM), the increased activity of neurons representing figures compared with background, which depends on feedback from higher areas. We found that feedforward-driven activity was strongly reduced by the AMPA receptor antagonist 6-cyano-7-nitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione (CNQX), whereas this drug had no effect on FGM. In contrast, blockers of the NMDA receptor reduced FGM, whereas their effect on visually driven activity varied with the subunit specificity of the drug. The NMDA receptor blocker 2-amino-5-phosphonovalerate (APV) caused a slight reduction of the visual response, whereas ifenprodil, which targets NMDA receptors containing the NMDA receptor NR2B subunit, increased the visual response. These findings demonstrate that glutamate receptors contribute differently to feedforward and recurrent processing in V1 and suggest ways to selectively disrupt recurrent processing so that its role in visual perception can be elucidated.T he areas of the primate visual cortex are arranged in a hierarchy, with feedforward connections propagating information from lower to higher areas and feedback connections carrying information in the opposite direction, back to the lower areas (1). Feedforward and recurrent processing differ greatly in function. Feedforward connections drive neurons in the visual cortex. They shape the receptive field of neurons, causing the rapid formation of tuning properties such as orientation and direction selectivity (2) and even sensitivity to complex objects such as faces. In contrast, recurrent input, carried by feedback connections from higher areas and by horizontal connections within a visual area, is thought not to drive neurons but to mediate modulatory, contextual effects (3, 4). Recurrent connections have been suggested to be involved in attention (5-7), figure-ground segregation (8-11), and conscious visual perception (12, 13), although their precise function is not well understood. One problem in studying the role of recurrent connections has been the lack of a tool to selectively inhibit them without disrupting feedforward processing. Some studies blocked the source of recurrent processing by suppressing activity in higher-level visual areas using cooling or injections of GABA while recording in lower-level areas (9,14,15). The results of these studies vary because some showed strong effects on V1 activity (15) and a decrease in contextual modulation (9), whereas others showed no effect (14). The exact effect of recurrent input into V1, therefore, remains to be elucidated.Why might feed...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Different glutamate receptors convey feedforward and recurrent processing in macaque V1

Self

Kooijmans²,

Supèr³

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

165

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relevant signals are believed to arise either via feedback connections from more central visual areas or via long-range horizontal connections within a given visual area (Allman et al 1985;Lamme et al 1998;Stettler et al 2002). The intra-areal hypothesis is supported in part by evidence indicating that the long-range horizontal connections in area V1 tend to connect cortical domains of similar orientation and convey orientation-specific signals (Bosking et al 1997;Gilbert and Wiesel 1990;Kisvarday et al 1997;Malach et al 1993;Stettler et al 2002), and their influence can be inhibitory (McGuire et al 1991).…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Masking and Segmentation: Where Do Contextual mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual Masking of Oriented Lines: Interactions Between Surface Segmentation Cues

Smagt

Wehrhahn

Albright³

2005

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While decades of work has characterised the 'early' neural processing of local image features (Hubel and Wiesel 1968;Smith et al 2002) as well as the 'later' processing of complex objects (Maunsell and Newsome 1987;Felleman and Van Essen 1991;Grill-Spector and Malach 2004), relatively little is known of the mechanisms of mid-level vision that bridge these stages. However, growing evidence indicates that the integration of local features into intermediately complex global forms involves processing in multiple sites in the primate brain, in both early retinotopic areas and higher areas in the ventral visual stream (Allman et al 1985;Lamme et al 1998;Achtman et al 2003;Kourtzi et al 2003;Grill-Spector and Malach 2004;Ostwald et al 2008). It is likely that the integration of local features is driven by both bottom-up stimulus properties such as collinearity, proximity and connectedness (see e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential human brain activation by vertical and horizontal global visual textures

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mid-level visual processes which integrate local orientation information for the detection of global structure can be investigated using global form stimuli of varying complexity. Several lines of evidence suggest that the identiWcation of concentric and parallel organisations relies on diVerent underlying neural substrates. The current study measured brain activation by concentric, horizontal parallel, and vertical parallel arrays of short line segments, compared to arrays of randomly oriented segments. Six subjects were scanned in a blocked design functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment. We compared percentage BOLD signal change during the concentric, horizontal and vertical blocks within early retinotopic areas, the fusiform face area and the lateral occipital complex. Unexpectedly, we found that vertical and horizontal parallel forms diVerentially activated visual cortical areas beyond V1, but in general, activations to concentric and parallel forms did not diVer. Vertical patterns produced the highest percentage signal change overall and only area V3A showed a signiWcant diVerence between concentric and parallel (horizontal) stimuli, with the former better activating this area. These data suggest that the diVerence in brain activation to vertical and horizontal forms arises at intermediate or global levels of visual representation since the diVerential activity was found in mid-level retinotopic areas V2 and V3 but not in V1. This may explain why earlier studies-using methods that emphasised responses to local orientation-did not discover this vertical-horizontal anisotropy.

show abstract

Feedforward, horizontal, and feedback processing in the visual cortex

Cited by 555 publications

References 82 publications

Different glutamate receptors convey feedforward and recurrent processing in macaque V1

Different glutamate receptors convey feedforward and recurrent processing in macaque V1

Contextual Masking of Oriented Lines: Interactions Between Surface Segmentation Cues

Differential human brain activation by vertical and horizontal global visual textures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About