Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:52:18.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orientation and Direction Tuning of Goldfish Ganglion Cells

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

Joseph Bilotta  and
Israel Abramov
Joseph Bilotta
Affiliation:
Visual Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College of CUNY, Brooklyn, New York
Israel Abramov
Affiliation:
Visual Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College of CUNY, Brooklyn, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Orientation and direction tuning were examined in goldfish ganglion cells by drifting sinusoidal gratings across the receptive field of the cell. Each ganglion cell was first classified as X-, Y- or W-like based on its responses to a contrast-reversal grating positioned at various spatial phases of the cell's receptive field. Sinusoidal gratings were drifted at different orientations and directions across the receptive field of the cell; spatial frequency and contrast of the grating were also varied. It was found that some X-like cells responded similarly to all orientations and directions, indicating that these cells had circular and symmetrical fields. Other X-like cells showed a preference for certain orientations at high spatial frequencies suggesting that these cells possess an elliptical center mechanism (since only the center mechanism is sensitive to high spatial frequencies). In virtually all cases, X-like cells were not directionally tuned. All but one Y-like cell displayed orientation tuning but, as with X-like cells, orientation tuning appeared only at high spatial frequencies. A substantial portion of these Y-like cells also showed a direction preference. This preference was dependent on spatial frequency but in a manner different from orientation tuning, suggesting that these two phenomena result from different mechanisms. All W-like cells possessed orientation and direction tuning, both of which depended on the spatial frequency of the stimulus. These results support past work which suggests that the center and surround components of retinal ganglion cell receptive fields are not necessarily circular or concentric, and that they may actually consist of smaller subareas.

Keywords

Goldfish ganglion cellOrientation tuningDirection tuning
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 3 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Abramov, I. & Levine, M.W. (1972). The effects of carbon dioxide on the excised goldfish retina. Vision Research 12, 1881–1895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, H.B. & Levick, W.R. (1965). The mechanism of directionally selective units in rabbit's retina. Journal of Physiology 178, 477–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilotta, J. (1987). Spatial and spectral properties of the goldfish retina. Ph.D. Dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Bilotta, J. & Abramov, I. (1985). Spatial properties of goldfish ganglion cells. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Suppl.) 26, 117.Google Scholar
Bilotta, J. & Abramov, I. (1988). Spatial properties of goldfish ganglion cells. (Submitted for publication).Google Scholar
Cronly-Dillon, J.R. (1964). Units sensitive to direction of movement in goldfish optic tectum. Nature 203, 214–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daw, N.W. & Beauchamp, R.D. (1972). Unusual units in the goldfish optic nerve. Vision Research 12, 1849–1856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawis, S., Shapley, R.M., Kaplan, E. & Tranchina, D. (1984). The receptive field organization of X-cells in the cat: spatiotemporal coupling and asymmetry. Vision Research 24, 549–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, P. (1974). Cat retinal ganglion cells: size and shape of receptive field centres. Journal of Physiology 242, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hochstein, S. & Shapley, R.M. (1976 a). Quantitative analysis of retinal ganglion cell classifications. Journal of Physiology 262, 237–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hochstein, S. & Shapley, R.M. (1976 b). Linear and nonlinear spatial subunits in Y cat retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Physiology 262, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishida, A.T., Stell, W.K. & Lightfoot, D.O. (1980). Rod and cone inputs to bipolar cells in goldfish retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology 191, 315–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobson, M. & Gaze, R.M. (1964). Types of visual response from single units in the optic tectum and optic nerve of the goldfish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 49, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kock, J.-H. & Reuter, T. (1978). Retinal ganglion cells in the crucian carp (Carassius carassius). II. Overlap, shape, and tangential orientation of dendritic trees. Journal of Comparative Neurology 179, 549–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuffler, S.W. (1953). Discharge patterns and functional organization of mammalian retina. Journal of Neurophysiology 16, 37–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levick, W.R. & Thibos, L.N. (1982). Analysis of orientation bias in cat retina. Journal of Physiology 329, 243–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, M.W. & Zimmerman, R.P. (1985). Mechanisms contributing to the receptive fields of ganglion cells in the retinae of fish. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Suppl.) 26, 263.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, R.M., Bilotta, J. & Abramov, I. (1987). Contributions of short-wavelength cones to goldfish ganglion cells. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 161, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milkman, N., Shapley, R. & Schick, G. (1978). A microcomputer-based visual stimulator. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation 10, 539–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemslag, F.C.C. & Schellart, N.A.M. (1978). Evoked potentials and spike responses to moving stimuli in the optic tectum of goldfish. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 128, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodieck, R.W. (1965). Quantitative analysis of cat retinal ganglion cell response to visual stimuli. Vision Research 5, 583–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodieck, R.W. (1979). Visual pathways. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2, 193–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodieck, R.W. & Stone, J. (1965). Analysis of receptive fields of cat retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Neurophysiology 28, 833–849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapley, R.M. & Gordon, J. (1978). The eel retina: ganglion cell classes and spatial mechanisms. Journal of General Physiology 71, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soodak, R.E. (1986). Two-dimensional modeling of visual receptive fields using Gaussian subunits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 83, 9259–9263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soodak, R.E., Shapley, R.M. & Kaplan, E. (1985). Unusual orientation tuning in the LGN and perigeniculate nucleus of the cat. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Suppl.) 26, 264.Google Scholar
Soodak, R.E., Shapley, R.M. & Kaplan, E. (1987). Linear mechanism of orientation tuning in the retina and lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat. Journal of Neurophysiology 58, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wartzok, D. & Marks, W.B. (1973). Directionally selective visual units recorded in optic tectum of the goldfish. Journal of Neurophysiology, 36, 588–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolbarsht, M.L. & Wagner, H.G. (1963). Glass-insulated platinum microelectrodes: design and fabrication. In Medical Electronics, ed. Bostem, H., pp. 510–515. Liege: University of Liege Press.Google Scholar