Elsevier

Brain Research

Volume 168, Issue 3, 8 June 1979, Pages 633-637
Brain Research

Binocular interaction in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the monkey

https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(79)90319-6Get rights and content

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (18)

  • HamoriJ. et al.

    Triadic synaptic arrangements and their possible significance in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the monkey

    Brain Research

    (1974)
  • SchmielauF. et al.

    The role of visual cortex for binocular interactions in the cat lateral geniculate nucleus

    Brain Research

    (1977)
  • BarlowH.B. et al.

    The neural mechanism of binocular depth discrimination

    J. Physiol. (Lond.)

    (1967)
  • BlakemoreC. et al.

    A second neural mechanism of binocular depth discrimination

    J. Physiol. (Lond.)

    (1972)
  • De ValoisR.L.

    Color vision mechanisms in the monkey

    J. gen. Physiol.

    (1960)
  • De ValoisR.L. et al.

    Analysis of response patterns of IGN cells

    J. opt. Soc. Amer.

    (1966)
  • DubinM.W. et al.

    Organization of visual inputs to interneurons of lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat

    J. Neurophysiol.

    (1977)
  • GilbertC.D.

    Laminar differences in receptive field properties of cells in cat primary visual cortex

    J. Physiol. (Lond.)

    (1977)
  • GuilleryR.W.

    Patterns of synaptic interconnections in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of cat and monkey: a brief review

    Vision Res.

    (1971)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (31)

  • Retinal ganglion cells and the magnocellular, parvocellular, and koniocellular subcortical visual pathways from the eye to the brain

    2021, Handbook of Clinical Neurology
    Citation Excerpt :

    A defining characteristic of the primate LGN is that each P- or M-layer derives input from only a single eye, and the signals from the two eyes are therefore generally thought to first converge in the primary visual cortex (V1). Early investigations found that P- and M-cells in the LGN were indeed monocular; finer measurements from macaque monkey revealed some interocular interactions in a small fraction of P- and M-cells (Marrocco and McClurkin, 1979) or interocular suppression in some M-cells (Rodieck and Dreher, 1979). The binocular interactions may be more apparent in multiunit recordings (Schroeder et al., 1990), but regardless these effects in P- or M-cells must be weak if present at all (Lehky and Maunsell, 1996).

  • Towards building a more complex view of the lateral geniculate nucleus: Recent advances in understanding its role

    2017, Progress in Neurobiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    It may also be involved in producing saccadic suppression (Felisberti and Derrington, 1999, 2001) (see Section 1.4.6), as well as improve coding efficiency by reducing spatial redundancy among neurons (Schwartz and Simoncelli, 2001). There are numerous reports in the early cat literature of weak binocular interactions in the LGN, primarily inhibition by the non-dominant eye of activity driven by the dominant eye, but occasionally excitatory input from the non-dominant eye as well (Lindsley et al., 1967; Marchiafava, 1966; Marrocco and McClurkin, 1979; Murphy and Sillito, 1989; Noda et al., 1972; Pape and Eysel, 1986; Sanderson et al., 1971, 1969; Singer, 1970; Suzuki and Kato, 1966; Suzuki and Takahashi, 1970; Vastola, 1960). Similar binocular interactions occur in monkey (Rodieck and Dreher, 1979; Schroeder et al., 1990), most prominently in magnocellular neurons.

  • The place of human psychophysics in modern neuroscience

    2015, Neuroscience
    Citation Excerpt :

    This demonstration immediately made stereopsis an attractive model system to neuroscientists seeking to understand the relationship between cortical computations and perception. Neurons in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus receive their primary innervation from only one eye, and although there are binocular interactions (Marrocco and McClurkin, 1979; Schroeder et al., 1990), thalamic neurons appear not to be tuned for disparity (Xue et al., 1987). Therefore, it seems likely that the neuronal mechanisms subserving stereo vision must begin in primary visual cortex, the first place in the visual pathway where neurons tuned to disparity are found.

  • Binocular integration in the mouse lateral geniculate nuclei

    2014, Current Biology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Given the generally near-identical latency of their monocular inputs, the most parsimonious explanation for our data is that many binocular cells receive monosynaptic input from either retina. This arrangement would be in stark contrast with the cat or primate LGN, in which binocular interactions (when present) are believed to arise polysynaptically [14–17]. An earlier study did find evidence for direct binocular integration in the rat LGN [18], however, suggesting this may be a common feature of rodent visual systems.

  • Chapter 8 Beyond a relay nucleus: neuroimaging views on the human LGN

    2006, Progress in Brain Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    These adjacent laminae form an ideal substrate for inhibitory interactions between the two eyes, which would allow the signal from one eye to be selectively suppressed. Binocular interactions, predominantly inhibitory, have been widely reported in both monkey (Rodieck and Dreher, 1979; Marrocco and McClurkin, 1979; Schroeder et al., 1990) and cat LGN (Singer, 1970; Sanderson et al., 1971; Schmielau and Singer, 1977; Pape and Eysel, 1986; Varela and Singer, 1987; Sengpiel et al., 1995) and might provide a neural substrate in producing rivalry. These inhibitory interactions may be mediated by several anatomical pathways including interneurons extending between LGN layers, corticogeniculate feedback from striate cortex, or modulatory input from the TRN, as discussed above.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Supported by NIH Grant EY 01286-04.

1

We thank J. Flemming and M. Vaughn for technical assistance and B. Gordon, G. Hoyle and R. Young for helpful comments on the manuscript.

View full text