Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T06:58:14.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of the difference-of-Gaussians model to circular drifting-grating patches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2005

G.T. EINEVOLL  and
H.E. PLESSER
G.T. EINEVOLL
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway
H.E. PLESSER
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forty years ago R.W. Rodieck introduced the Difference-of-Gaussians (DOG) model, and this model has been widely used by the visual neuroscience community to quantitatively account for spatial response properties of cells in the retina and lateral geniculate nucleus following visual stimulation. Circular patches of drifting gratings are now regularly used as visual stimuli when probing the early visual system, but for this stimulus type the mathematical evaluation of the DOG-model response is significantly more complicated than for moving bars, full-field drifting gratings, or circular flashing spots. Here we derive mathematical formulas for the DOG-model response to centered circular patch gratings. The response is found to be given as the difference between two summed series, where each term in the series involves the confluent hypergeometric function. This function is available in commonly used mathematical software, and the results should thus be readily applicable. Example results illustrate how a strong surround suppression in area-summation curves for iso-luminant circular spots may be reversed into a surround enhancement for circular patch gratings. They also show that the spatial-frequency response changes from band-pass to low-pass when going from the full-field grating situation to the situation where the patch covers only the receptive-field center.

Keywords

Receptive fieldDifference-of-Gaussians modelCircular patchesDrifting gratings
Type
Research Article
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , July 2005 , pp. 437 - 446
Copyright
2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, M. & Stegun, I.A. (1965). Handbook of Mathematical Functions. New York: Dover.
Allito, H.J. & Usrey, W.M. (2004). Temporal evolution of extra-classical suppression in the LGN: Distinguishing feedforward and feedback mechanisms. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts 409.5.Google Scholar
Andolina, I.M., Wang, W., Jones, H.E., Salt, T.E., & Sillito, A.M. (2002). Effects of feedback on cat LGN cell spatial summation parameters dissected with the difference of Gaussian model (DOGM). Society for Neuroscience Abstracts 352.17.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R.N. (1986). The Fourier Transform and its Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Butkov, E. (1968). Mathematical Physics. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Cudeiro, J. & Sillito, A.M. (1996). Spatial frequency tuning of orientation-discontinuity-sensitive corticofugal feedback to the cat lateral geniculate nucleus. Journal of Physiology 490, 481–492.Google Scholar
Dawis, S., Shapley, R., Kaplan, E., & Tranchina, D. (1984). The receptive field organization of X-cells in the cat: Spatiotemporal coupling and asymmetry. Vision Research 24, 549–564.Google Scholar
Einevoll, G.T. & Heggelund, P. (2000). Mathematical models for the spatial receptive-field organization of nonlagged X cells in dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of cat. Visual Neuroscience 17, 871–886.Google Scholar
Einevoll, G.T. & Plesser, H.E. (2002). Linear mechanistic models for the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of cat probed using drifting-grating stimuli. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 13, 503–530.Google Scholar
Einevoll, G.T. & Plesser, H.E. (2003). Extended DOG receptive-field model for LGN relay cells incorporating cortical-feedback effects. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts 68.11.Google Scholar
Enroth-Cugell, C. & Robson, J.G. (1966). The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat. Journal of Physiology 187, 517–552.Google Scholar
Enroth-Cugell, C., Robson, J.G., Schweitzer-Tong, D.E., & Watson, A.B. (1983). Spatio-temporal interactions in cat retinal ganglion cells showing linear spatial summation. Journal of Physiology 341, 279–307.Google Scholar
Gradshteyn, I.S., Ryzhik, I.M., & Jeffrey, A. (2000). Tables of Integrals, Series and Products. New York: Academic Press.
Heeger, D.J. (1991). Nonlinear model of neural responses in cat visual cortex. In Computational Models of Visual Processing, ed. Landy, M.S. & Movshon, J.A., pp. 119–134. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Kaplan, E., Marcus, S., & So, Y.T. (1979). Effects of dark adaptation on spatial and temporal properties of receptive fields in cat lateral geniculate nucleus. Journal of Physiology 294, 561–580.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, P. & Kaplan, E. (1995). Dynamics of neurons in the cat lateral geniculate nucleus: In vivo electrophysiology and computational modeling. Journal of Neurophysiology 74, 1222–1243.Google Scholar
Norton, T.T., Holdefer, R.N., & Godwin, D.W. (1989). Effects of bicuculline on receptive field center sensitivity of relay cells in lateral geniculate nucleus. Brain Research 488, 348–352.Google Scholar
Rodieck, R.W. (1965). Quantitative analysis of cat retinal ganglion cell response to visual stimuli. Vision Research 5, 583–601.Google Scholar
Shapley, R. & Lennie, P. (1985). Spatial frequency analysis in the visual system. Annual Review of Neuroscience 8, 547–583.Google Scholar
Sillito, A., Cudeiro, J., & Murphy, P. (1993). Orientation sensitive elements in the corticofugal influence on centre-surround interactions in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus. Experimental Brain Research 93, 6–16.Google Scholar
Sillito, A. & Jones, H.E. (1997). Functional organization influencing neurotransmission in the lateral geniculate nucleus. In Thalamus, Vol. II, ed. Steriade, M., Jones, E.G. & McCormick, D.A., pp. 1–52. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sillito, A.M. & Jones, H.E. (2002). Corticothalamic interactions in the transfer of visual information. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (London) 357, 1739–52.Google Scholar
So, Y.T. & Shapley, R. (1981). Spatial tuning of cells in and around lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat: X and Y relay cells and perigeniculate interneurons. Journal of Neurophysiology 45, 107–120.Google Scholar
Soodak, R.E. (1986). Two-dimensional modeling of visual receptive fields using Gaussian subunits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 83, 9259–9263.Google Scholar
Troy, J.B. (1983). Spatial contrast sensitivities of X and Y type neurones in the cat's dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus. Journal of Physiology 344, 399–417.Google Scholar
Uhlrich, D.J., Tamamaki, N., Murphy, P.C., & Sherman, S.M (1995). Effects of brain stem parabrachial activation on receptive field properties of cells in the cat's lateral geniculate nucleus. Journal of Neurophysiology 73, 2428–2447.Google Scholar