Jones H E, Wang W, Sillito A M
Department of Visual Science, Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London EC1V 9EL, United Kingdom.
J Neurophysiol. 2002 Nov;88(5):2796-808. doi: 10.1152/jn.00403.2001.
We have explored the spatial organization of orientation contrast effects in primate V1. Our stimuli were either concentric patches of drifting grating of varying orientation and diameter or grating patches displaced in x-y coordinates around a central patch overlying the classical receptive field (CRF). All cells in the sample exhibited response suppression to iso-oriented stimuli exceeding the CRF. Changing the outer stimulus orientation revealed five response patterns: 1) orientation alignment suppression (17% of cells)-a suppressive component tuned to the same orientation as the cell's optimal, 2) orientation contrast facilitation (63%)-responses to orientation contrast stimuli exceeded those to the center stimulus alone, 3) nonorientation specific suppression (3%), 4) mixed general suppression and alignment suppression (14%), and 5) orientation contrast suppression (14%)-cross-oriented stimuli evoked stronger suppression than iso-oriented stimuli. Thus most cells (94%) showed larger responses to orientation contrast stimuli than to iso-oriented stimuli, and over one-half showed orientation contrast facilitation. There appeared to be a spatially structured organization of the zones driving the different response patterns with respect to the CRF. Nonorientation-specific suppression and orientation contrast suppression were predominantly evoked by orientation contrast borders located within the CRF, and orientation contrast facilitation was mainly driven by surround stimuli lying outside the CRF. This led to different response patterns according to border location. Zones driving orientation contrast facilitation were not necessarily contiguous to, nor uniformly distributed around, the CRF. Our data support two processes underlying orientation contrast enhancement effects: a simple variation in the strength of surround suppression drawing on the fact that surround suppression is tuned to the same orientation as the CRF and a second process driven by orientation contrast that enhanced cells' responses to CRF stimulation by either dis-inhibition or orientation contrast facilitation. We suggest these processes may serve to enhance response levels to salient image features such as junctions and corners and may contribute to orientation pop-out.
我们研究了灵长类动物初级视皮层(V1)中方向对比效应的空间组织。我们的刺激物要么是具有不同方向和直径的同心漂移光栅斑块,要么是在x - y坐标中围绕覆盖经典感受野(CRF)的中央斑块位移的光栅斑块。样本中的所有细胞对超出CRF的同方向刺激均表现出反应抑制。改变外部刺激方向揭示了五种反应模式:1)方向对齐抑制(17%的细胞)——一种抑制成分,其调谐到与细胞最佳方向相同的方向;2)方向对比促进(63%)——对方向对比刺激的反应超过了仅对中央刺激的反应;3)非方向特异性抑制(3%);4)混合的一般抑制和对齐抑制(14%);5)方向对比抑制(14%)——交叉方向刺激比同方向刺激引起更强的抑制。因此,大多数细胞(94%)对方向对比刺激的反应比对同方向刺激的反应更大,并且超过一半的细胞表现出方向对比促进。相对于CRF,驱动不同反应模式的区域似乎存在空间结构组织。非方向特异性抑制和方向对比抑制主要由位于CRF内的方向对比边界引起,而方向对比促进主要由位于CRF外的周边刺激驱动。这导致了根据边界位置的不同反应模式。驱动方向对比促进的区域不一定与CRF相邻,也不一定围绕CRF均匀分布。我们的数据支持方向对比增强效应背后的两个过程:一是基于周边抑制强度的简单变化,即周边抑制调谐到与CRF相同的方向;二是由方向对比驱动的第二个过程,该过程通过去抑制或方向对比促进增强细胞对CRF刺激的反应。我们认为这些过程可能有助于提高对诸如连接点和角等显著图像特征的反应水平,并可能有助于方向突显。