Dense retinotopy data sets were obtained by microelectrode visual receptive field mapping in dorsal and lateral visual cortex of anesthetized owl monkeys. The cortex was then physically flatmounted and stained for myelin or cytochrome oxidase. Retinotopic mapping data were digitized, interpolated to a uniform grid, analyzed using the visual field sign technique—which locally distinguishes mirror image from nonmirror image visual field representations—and correlated with the myelin or cytochrome oxidase patterns. The region between V2 (nonmirror) and MT (nonmirror) contains three areas—DLp (mirror), DLi (nonmirror), and DLa/MTc (mirror). DM (mirror) was thin anteroposteriorly, and its reduced upper field bent somewhat anteriorly away from V2. DI (nonmirror) directly adjoined V2 (nonmirror) and contained only an upper field representation that also adjoined upper field DM (mirror). Retinotopy was used to define area VPP (nonmirror), which adjoins DM anteriorly, area FSTd (mirror), which adjoins MT ventrolaterally, and TP (mirror), which adjoins MT and DLa/MTc dorsoanteriorly. There was additional retinotopic and architectonic evidence for five more subdivisions of dorsal and lateral extrastriate cortex—TA (nonmirror), MSTd (mirror), MSTv (nonmirror), FSTv (nonmirror), and PP (mirror). Our data appear quite similar to data from marmosets, though our field sign-based areal subdivisions are slightly different. The region immediately anterior to the superiorly located central lower visual field V2 varied substantially between individuals, but always contained upper fields immediately touching lower visual field V2. This region appears to vary even more between species. Though we provide a summary diagram, given within- and between-species variation, it should be regarded as a guide to parsing complex retinotopy rather than a literal representation of any individual, or as the only way to agglomerate the complex mosaic of partial upper and lower field, mirror- and nonmirror-image patches into areas.

Human contrast sensitivity for narrowband Gabor targets is suppressed when superimposed on narrowband masks of the same spatial frequency and orientation (referred to as overlay suppression), with suppression being broadly tuned to orientation and spatial frequency. Numerous behavioral and neurophysiological experiments have suggested that overlay suppression originates from the initial lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) inputs to V1, which is consistent with the broad tuning typically reported for overlay suppression. However, recent reports have shown narrowly tuned anisotropic overlay suppression when narrowband targets are masked by broadband noise. Consequently, researchers have argued for an additional form of overlay suppression that involves cortical contrast gain control processes. The current study sought to further explore this notion behaviorally using narrowband and broadband masks, along with a computational neural simulation of the hypothesized underlying gain control processes in cortex. Additionally, we employed transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in order to test whether cortical processes are involved in driving narrowly tuned anisotropic suppression. The behavioral results yielded anisotropic overlay suppression for both broadband and narrowband masks and could be replicated with our computational neural simulation of anisotropic gain control. Further, the anisotropic form of overlay suppression could be directly modulated by tDCS, which would not be expected if the suppression was primarily subcortical in origin. Altogether, the results of the current study provide further evidence in support of an additional overlay suppression process that originates in cortex and show that this form of suppression is also observable with narrowband masks.

The patches in primary visual cortex constitute hot spots of metabolic activity, manifested by enhanced levels of cytochrome oxidase (CO) activity. They are also labeled preferentially by immunostaining for glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD), γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and parvalbumin. However, calbindin shows stronger immunoreactivity outside patches. In light of this discrepancy, the distribution of the vesicular GABA transporter (VGAT) was examined in striate cortex of two normal macaques. VGAT immunoreactivity was strongest in layers 4B, 4Cα, and 5. In tangential sections, the distribution of CO, GAD, and VGAT was compared in layer 2/3. There was a close match between all three labels. This finding indicates that GABA synthesis is enriched in patches, and that inhibitory synapses are more active in patches than interpatches.

Receptive fields (RFs) of most retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) consist of an excitatory center and suppressive surround. The RF center arises from the summation of excitatory bipolar cell glutamatergic inputs, whereas the surround arises from lateral inhibitory inputs. In the retina, both gamma amino butyric acid (GABA) and glycine are inhibitory neurotransmitters. A clear role for GABAergic inhibition modulating the RGC RF surround has been demonstrated across species. Glycinergic inhibition is more commonly associated with RF center modulation, although there is some evidence that it may contribute to the RF surround. The synaptic glycinergic chloride channels are formed by three homomeric β and two homomeric α subunits that can be glycine receptor (GlyR) α1, α2, α3, or α4. GlyRα composition is responsible for currents with distinct decay kinetics. Their expression within the inner plexiform laminae and neuronal subtypes also differ. We studied the role of GlyR subunit selective modulation of RGC RF surrounds, using mice lacking GlyRα2 (Glra2−/−), GlyRα3 (Glra3−/−), or both (Glra2/3−/−). We chose this molecular genetic approach instead of pharmacological manipulation because there are no subunit selective antagonists and strychnine blocks all GlyRs. Comparisons of annulus-evoked responses among wild type (WT) and GlyRα knockouts (Glra2−/−, Glra3−/− and Glra2/3−/−) show that GlyRα2 inhibition enhances RF surround suppression and post-stimulus excitation in only WT OFF RGCs. Similarities in the responses in Glra2−/− and Glra2/3−/− RGCs verify these conclusions. Based on previous and current data, we propose that GlyRα2-mediated input uses a crossover inhibitory circuit. Further, we suggest that GlyRα2 modulates the OFF RGC RF center and surround independently. In summary, our results define a selective GlyR subunit-specific control of RF surround suppression in OFF RGCs.