Retinal ganglion cell inputs to the koniocellular pathway

Szmajda, Brett A.; Grünert, Ulrike; Martin, Paul R.

doi:10.1002/cne.21783

Cited by 84 publications

(163 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Retrogradely labeled ganglion cells were photofilled as described in detail previously (Dacey et al, 2003;Szmajda et al, 2005Szmajda et al, , 2008Jusuf et al, 2006aJusuf et al, , 2006b). The eyes were enucleated, the cornea, lens, and vitreous were removed, and the posterior eyecup was immersed in carboxygenated Ames medium (Sigma, St. Louis, MO).…”

Section: Retrograde Labeling and Photofillingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The midget‐parvocellular pathway of marmoset retina: A quantitative light microscopic study

Telkes

Lee

Jusuf

et al. 2008

J of Comparative Neurology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The midget-parvocellular pathway in foveal retina of primates shows a "private line" (one-to-one) connectivity with cone photoreceptors. The connectivity of this pathway outside the fovea is not well understood. Here, we studied the population of OFF midget bipolar cells across the retinae of marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus) by using light microscopy. Cone pedicles were labeled with peanut agglutinin, OFF midget bipolar cells were labeled with antibodies against CD15, and midget ganglion cells were retrogradely labeled from the lateral geniculate nucleus and subsequently photofilled. Each midget bipolar cell contacts a single cone in foveal retina, but outside the fovea midget bipolar cells contact multiple cones: one to two cones at 1 mm ( approximately 8 degrees); three to four cones at 3-4 mm ( approximately 25 degrees); and five or more cones beyond 6 mm (>50 degrees). Throughout this eccentricity range, all medium (M) and long (L) wavelength sensitive cones make similar number of contacts with midget bipolar cells, but short wavelength sensitive (S) cones make little or no contact. By calculating the numerical convergence between midget bipolar and midget ganglion cells, we estimate that midget ganglion cells receive input from up to 25 cones at approximately 5 degrees, and from more than 65 cones at approximately 50 degrees. No obvious differences were seen between the retinae of animals with di- or trichromatic color vision. The finding that the one-to-one connectivity is restricted to the fovea predicts that in marmosets spectral mixing of M/L cone inputs will occur peripheral to 10 degrees of visual angle.

show abstract

Section: Retrograde Labeling and Photofillingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The midget‐parvocellular pathway of marmoset retina: A quantitative light microscopic study

Telkes

Lee

Jusuf

et al. 2008

J of Comparative Neurology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although most studies of primate retina and LGN focus on the work done by the P-and M-pathways, other ganglion cell types project to the LGN (Dacey et al 2003;Rodieck and Watanabe 1993;Szmajda et al 2008) and therefore might have direct access to conscious visual sensation. Some of these neurons receive substantial input from S-cones and have predominantly linear receptive fields that seem suited to conveying chromatic information (Crook et al 2009;Lankheet et al 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linear and Nonlinear Contributions to the Visual Sensitivity of Neurons in Primate Lateral Geniculate Nucleus

Solomon

Tailby

Cheong

et al. 2010

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solomon SG, Tailby C, Cheong SK, Camp AJ. Linear and nonlinear contributions to the visual sensitivity of neurons in primate lateral geniculate nucleus. J Neurophysiol 104: 1884 -1898, 2010. First published August 4, 2010 doi:10.1152/jn.01118.2009. Several parallel pathways convey retinal signals to the visual cortex of primates. The signals of the parvocellular (P) and magnocellular (M) pathways are well characterized; the properties of other rarely encountered cell types are distinctive in many ways, but it is not clear that they can provide signals with the same fidelity. Here we study this by characterizing the temporal receptive field of neurons in the lateral geniculate nucleus of anesthetized marmosets. For each neuron, we measured the response to a flickering uniform field, and, from this, estimated the linear and nonlinear receptive fields using spike-triggered average (STA) and spike-triggered covariance (STC) analyses. As expected the response of most P-cells was dominated by the STA, but the response of most M-cells required additional nonlinear components, and these usually acted to suppress cell responses. The STC analysis showed stronger suppressive axes in suppressed-by-contrast cells, and both suppressive and excitatory axes in ON-OFF cells. Together, the STA and the STC analyses form a model of the temporal response to a large uniform field: under this model, the information that was provided by suppressed-by-contrast cells or ON-OFF cells approached that provided by the P-and M-cells. However, whereas Pand M-cells provided more information about luminance, the nonlinear cells provided more information about the contrast energy. This suggests that the nonlinear cells provide complimentary signals to those of P-and M-cells, with reasonably high fidelity, and may play an important role in normal visual processing.

show abstract

“…The marmoset is one of the smallest living primates, with a brain that is less than 1/12 the volume of a macaque brain, and 1/180 the volume of the human brain (Stephan et al, 1981). There have been many studies of the organization of the visual system in the marmoset, including the retina (e.g., Troilo et al, 1993;Goodchild et al, 1996;Wilder et al, 1996;Silveira et al, 1999;Chan et al, 2001;Szmajda et al, 2005Szmajda et al, , 2008Springer et al, 2011), lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN, e.g., Spatz, 1978;Fritschy and Garey, 1986;Yeh et al, 1995;Kremers and Weiss, 1997;Martin et al, 1997;White et al, 1998White et al, , 2001Felisberti and Derrington, 2001;Solomon et al, 2002Solomon et al, , 2010Webb et al., 2002), V1 (e.g., Fritsches and Rosa, 1996;Bourne et al, 2002;Zinke et al, 2006;Buzas et al, 2008;, and extrastriate cortex (e.g., Krubitzer and Kaas, 1990;Rosa et al, 1997aRosa et al, ,b, 2000Rosa et al, , 2005Rosa et al, , 2009Schiessl, 2006, 2009;Lui et al, 2006Lui et al, , 2007aFederer et al, 2009;Jeffs et al, 2009Jeffs et al, , 2012Solomon et al, 2011). The present results build on earlier reports of the global visuotopy (Fritsches and Rosa, 1996) and local precision (McLoughlin...…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Representation of the visual field in the primary visual area of the marmoset monkey: Magnification factors, point‐image size, and proportionality to retinal ganglion cell density

Chaplin

Rosa

2013

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary visual area (V1) forms a systematic map of the visual field, in which adjacent cell clusters represent adjacent points of visual space. A precise quantification of this map is key to understanding the anatomical relationships between neurons located in different stations of the visual pathway, as well as the neural bases of visual performance in different regions of the visual field. We used computational methods to quantify the visual topography of V1 in the marmoset (Callithrix jacchus), a small diurnal monkey. The receptive fields of neurons throughout V1 were mapped in two anesthetized animals using electrophysiological recordings. Following histological reconstruction, precise 3D reconstructions of the V1 surface and recording sites were generated. We found that the areal magnification factor (M(A) ) decreases with eccentricity following a function that has the same slope as that observed in larger diurnal primates, including macaque, squirrel, and capuchin monkeys, and humans. However, there was no systematic relationship between M(A) and polar angle. Despite individual variation in the shape of V1, the relationship between M(A) and eccentricity was preserved across cases. Comparison between V1 and the retinal ganglion cell density demonstrated preferential magnification of central space in the cortex. The size of the cortical compartment activated by a punctiform stimulus decreased from the foveal representation towards the peripheral representation. Nonetheless, the relationship between the receptive field sizes of V1 cells and the density of ganglion cells suggested that each V1 cell receives information from a similar number of retinal neurons, throughout the visual field.

show abstract

Retinal ganglion cell inputs to the koniocellular pathway

Cited by 84 publications

References 82 publications

The midget‐parvocellular pathway of marmoset retina: A quantitative light microscopic study

The midget‐parvocellular pathway of marmoset retina: A quantitative light microscopic study

Linear and Nonlinear Contributions to the Visual Sensitivity of Neurons in Primate Lateral Geniculate Nucleus

Representation of the visual field in the primary visual area of the marmoset monkey: Magnification factors, point‐image size, and proportionality to retinal ganglion cell density

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About