Red/green opponency in the rhesus macaque ERG spectral sensitivity is reduced by bicuculline

Mills, Steven; Sperling, Harry G.

doi:10.1017/s0952523800000286

Cited by 25 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Malpeli andSchiller (1978), de Monasterio (1979), and Zrenner and Gouras (1981) all report a relative insensitivity to short-wavelength light in OFF-center retinal ganglion cells and lateral geniculate cells of the monkey, but ONcenter cells exhibited a strong response to short-wavelength stimuli. Mills and Sperling (1990) suggest that antagonism between Mand L-cones is stronger at the level of ON-center bipolar cells than for OFF-center bipolar cells. The spectral sensitivity of the ON response in the present study shows a strong influence from the S-cones, whereas the OFF response does not show overtly the same influence.…”

Section: Relation Of the Results To Other Physiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The spectral sensitivity of the ON response is consistent with the findings of studies which suggest that ONcenter retinal ganglion cells are particularly sensitive to shortwavelength light. Mills and Sperling (1990) report spectral sensitivity differences between the b-and rf-waves of the monkey ERG that are thought to be due to the presence or absence of spectral opponency between M-and L-cones. Evers and Gouras (1986) report evidence for S-cone input to ON-center but not OFF-center bipolar cells, as concluded from macaque ERG data.…”

Section: Relation Of the Results To Other Physiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…De Monasterio (1979) found that the 6-wave of the electroretinogram (ERG), a response to light increments, was more sensitive to short wavelengths of light than was the rf-wave, which is a response to light decrements. Mills and Sperling (1990) have also reported different spectral sensitivities for the ERG b-and rf-waves of the monkey, and show that spectral sensitivity of the &-wave is fit by a model that incorporates chromatic opponency, whereas the spectral sensitivity of the </-wave can be modeled by a nonopponent, additive model. Mills and Sperling (1990) have also reported different spectral sensitivities for the ERG b-and rf-waves of the monkey, and show that spectral sensitivity of the &-wave is fit by a model that incorporates chromatic opponency, whereas the spectral sensitivity of the </-wave can be modeled by a nonopponent, additive model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Spectral sensitivity of ON and OFF responses from the optic nerve of goldfish

DeMarco

Powers

1991

Vis Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The vertebrate retina processes visual information in parallel neural pathways known as the ON and OFF pathways. These pathways encode increments and decrements of light independently as excitatory responses. We examined the photopic spectral response of ON and OFF mechanisms in goldfish by measuring the sensitivity of optic nerve responses to the onset and termination of stimuli of various wavelengths. Using various adapting backgrounds, we found that the ON and OFF responses have different spectral sensitivities. The weighting of the cone inputs to the responses was estimated by an algebraic summation model. This model suggests that for the ON response, input from S-cones is stronger and more independent than for the OFF response, and M-and L-cones show stronger antagonism in the ON response than in the OFF response. The OFF response probably receives input from all cone types, but spectral antagonism is weak and its dominant input is from L-cones.

show abstract

Section: Relation Of the Results To Other Physiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Relation Of the Results To Other Physiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spectral sensitivity of ON and OFF responses from the optic nerve of goldfish

DeMarco

Powers

1991

Vis Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In summary, the local inhibitory influence of horizontal cells may contribute to both spatial and chromatic opponency yet may not be the critical locus for coneselective inhibition. A network involving amacrine cells or amacrine-ganglion cell interactions becomes an equally likely candidate (Mills and Sperling, 1990;Taylor, 1999;Flores-Herr et al, 2001;Kenyon et al, 2004), but the details of this anatomical wiring are not established. Our results suggest that, whatever mechanism is at work, it is most likely common to central and mid-peripheral retina.…”

Section: Source Of Functional Bias In Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specificity of M and L Cone Inputs to Receptive Fields in the Parvocellular Pathway: Random Wiring with Functional Bias

Buzás¹,

Blessing²,

Szmajda³

et al. 2006

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many of the parvocellular pathway (PC) cells in primates show red-green spectral selectivity (cone opponency), but PC ganglion cells in the retina show no anatomical signs of cone selectivity. Here we asked whether responses of PC cells are compatible with "random wiring" of cone inputs. We measured long-wavelength-sensitive (L) and medium-wavelength-sensitive (M) cone inputs to PC receptive fields in the dorsal lateral geniculate of marmosets, using discrete stimuli (apertures and annuli) to achieve functional segregation of center and surround. Receptive fields between the fovea and 30°eccentricity were measured.We show that, in opponent PC cells, the center is dominated by one (L or M) cone type, with normally Ͻ20% contribution from the other cone type (high "cone purity"), whereas non-opponent cells have mixed L and M cone inputs to the receptive field center. Furthermore, opponent response strength depends on the overall segregation of L and M cone inputs to center and surround rather than exclusive input from one cone type to either region. These data are consistent with random wiring. The majority of PC cells in both foveal (Ͻ8°) and peripheral retina nevertheless show opponent responses. This arises because cone purity in the receptive field surround is at least as high as in the center, and the surround in nearly all opponent PC cells is dominated by the opposite cone type to that which dominates the center. These functional biases increase the proportion of opponent PC cells, but their anatomical basis is unclear.

show abstract

“…There are a number of possibilities as to where this signal originates. Some believe that it corresponds to the photoreceptors turning off at stimulus termination (Dowling, 1987), and others believe it corresponds with the response of the OFF-bipolar cells (Mills & Sperling, 1990). It is also possible, however, that it is a combination of the two.…”

Section: The Electroretinogrammentioning

confidence: 99%