Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T20:49:01.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of a luminanace-modulated background on the grating-evoked cortical potential in the cat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

John A. Baro  and
Stephen Lehmkuhle
John A. Baro
Affiliation:
School of Optometry, University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis
Stephen Lehmkuhle
Affiliation:
School of Optometry, University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Averaged grating-evoked cortical potentials were recorded from area 17 of awake cats. Peak latency of early components of the visual-evoked potential (VEP) response to stimulus onset increased as a function of spatial frequency, while amplitude tended to be largest at intermediate spatial frequencies. Latency increased and amplitude generally decreased to lower spatial-frequency stimuli (<0.25 cycle/deg) in the presence of a uniform flickering field (UFF). The UFF had a relatively small or opposite effect on peak latency and amplitude for higher spatial-frequency stimuli (>0.50 cycle/deg). The VEP response to stimulus offset was present only at low spatial frequencies and was virtually eliminated by the presence of the UFF. The effects were similar whether the target and UFF background were simultaneously presented or briefly separated; however, the UFF had no effect when the two were spatially separated. The effects of the UFF background on VEP onset response increased with increasing temporal frequency from 2–8 Hz; offset responses were affected similarly at all temporal frequencies. These effects are similar to those observed in humans and suggest that two spatio-temporally tuned mechanisms contribute to the early VEP response. In the cat, the mechanisms seem to correspond to X and Y cells in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus.

Keywords

Visual-evoked potentialSpatial frequencyMaskingCatLatency
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , December 1989 , pp. 563 - 572
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

Badcock, D.R. & Sevdalis, E. (1987). Masking by uniform field flicker: some practical problems. Perception 16, 641–647.Google Scholar
Baro, J.A. & Lehmkuhle, S. (1988). A software system for recording and analyzing transient-evoked potential data with an Apple IIe computer. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 20, 515–516.Google Scholar
Baro, J.A. & Lehmkuhle, S. The effects of a luminance-modulated background on human grating-evoked cortical potentials. Clinical Visual Science (in press).Google Scholar
Bolz, J., Rosner, G. & Wässle, H. (1982). Response latency of brisk sustained (X) and brisk transient (Y) cells in the cat retina. Journal of Physiology (London) 328, 171–190.Google Scholar
Bowling, A. (1985). The effects of peripheral movement and flicker on the detection thresholds of sinusoidal gratings. Perception and Psychophysics 37, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breitmeyer, B., Levi, D.M. & Harwerth, R.S. (1981). Flicker masking in spatial vision. Vision Research 21, 1377–1385.Google Scholar
Derrington, A. M. & Lennie, P. (1982). The influence of temporal frequency and adaptation level on receptive-field organization of retinal ganglion cells in cat. Journal of Physiology (London) 333, 343–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derrington, A. M. & Lennie, P. (1984). Spatial and temporal contrast sensitivities of neurones in lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque. Journal of Physiology (London) 357, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Essock, E.A., Lehmkuhle, S., Frascella, J. & Enoch, J.M. (1985). Temporal modulation of the background affects the sensitization response of X- and Y-cells in the dLGN of cat. Vision Research 25, 1007–1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gish, K., Shulman, G.L., Sheehy, J.B. & Leibowitz, H.W. (1986). Reaction times to different spatial frequencies as a function of detectability. Vision Research 26, 745–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, M. (1983). Visual masking by flickering surrounds. Vision Research 23, 735–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harwerth, R.S. & Levi, D.M. (1978). Reaction time as a measure of suprathreshold grating detection. Vision Research 18, 1579–1586.Google Scholar
Hughes, H.C. (1986). Asymmetric interference between components of suprathreshold compound gratings. Perception and Psychophysics 40, 241–250.Google Scholar
Humphrey, A.C., Sur, M., Uhlrich, D.J. & Sherman, S.M. (1985). Projection patterns of individual X- and Y-cell axons from the lateral geniculate nucleus to cortical area 17 in the cat. Journal of Comparative Neurology 233, 159–189.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E. & Shapley, R.M. (1982). X and Y cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque monkeys. Journal of Physiology (London) 330, 125–143.Google Scholar
Lehmkuhie, S., Kratz, K.E., Mangel, S.C. & Sherman, S.M. (1980). Spatial and temporal sensitivity of X- and Y-cells in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat. Journal of Neurophysiology 43, 520–541.Google Scholar
Lupp, U., Hauske, G. & Wolf, W. (1976). Perceptual latencies to sinusoidal gratings. Vision Research 16, 969–972.Google Scholar
Mussrlwhite, M.J. & Jeffreys, D.A. (1985). The influence of spatial frequency on the reaction times and evoked potentials recorded to grating stimuli. Vision Research 25, 1545–1555.Google Scholar
O'Connor, S.J., Tasman, A., Simon, R.H. & Hale, M.S. (1983). A model referenced method for the identification of evoked-potential component wave forms. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 55, 233–237.Google Scholar
Parker, D.M. & Salzen, E.A. (1977). Latency changes in the human visual-evoked response to sinusoidal gratings. Vision Research 17, 1201–1204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plant, G.T., Zimmern, R.L. & Durden, K. (1983). Transient visually evoked potentials to the pattern reversal and onset of sinusoidal gratings. Electronencephalgraphy and Clinical Neurophysiology 56, 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sestokas, A.K. & Lehmkuhile, S. (1986). Visual-response latency of X- and Y-cells in dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat. Vision Research 26, 1041–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sestokas, A.K. & Lehmkuhile, S. (1987). Visual latency of genglion X-and Y-cells: a comparison with geniculate X-and Y-cells. Vision Research 27, 1399–1408.Google Scholar
Troy, J.B. (1983). Spatial contrast sensitivities of X and Y type neurons in the cat's dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus. Journal of Physiology (London) 44, 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tusa, R.J., Palmer, L.A. & Rosenquist, A.C. (1981). Multiple cortical visual areas: visual field topography in the cat. In Cortical Sensory Organization, ed. Woolsey, C.N., pp. 1–31, Humana, Clifton.Google Scholar
Vassilev, A. & Stomonyakov, V. (1987). The effect of grating spatial frequency on the early VEP-component. Clinical Vision Research 27, 727–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vassilev, A. & Strashimirov, D. (1979). On the latency of human visually evoked response to sinusoidal gratings. Vision Research 19, 834–845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vassilev, A., Manahilov, V. & Mitov, D. (1983). Spatial frequency and the pattern onset-offset response. Vision Research 23, 1417–1422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed