4.7 Article

Inhibition in Simple Cell Receptive Fields Is Broad and OFF-Subregion Biased

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 595-612

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2099-17.2017

关键词

conductances; inhibitory interneuron; input integration; intracellular recordings; primary visual cortex; push-pull

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01EY027205]
  2. National Science Foundation [GRFP DGE-1321851]
  3. University of Pennsylvania [T32 EY007035-38]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inhibition in thalamorecipient layer 4 simple cells of primary visual cortex is believed to play important roles in establishing visual response properties and integrating visual inputs across their receptive fields (RFs). Simple cell RFs are characterized by nonoverlapping, spatially restricted subregions in which visual stimuli can either increase or decrease the firing rate of the cell, depending on contrast. Inhibition is believed to be triggered exclusively from visual stimulation of individual RF subregions. However, this view is at odds with the known anatomy of layer 4 interneurons in visual cortex and differs from recent findings in mouse visual cortex. Here we show with in vivo intracellular recordings in cats that while excitation is restricted to RF subregions, inhibition spans the width of simple cell RFs. Consequently, excitatory stimuli within a subregion concomitantly drive excitation and inhibition. Furthermore, we found that the distribution of inhibition across the RF is stronger toward OFF subregions. This inhibitory OFF-subregion bias has a functional consequence on spatial integration of inputs across the RF. A model based on the known anatomy of layer 4 demonstrates that the known proportion and connectivity of inhibitory neuronsin layer 4 of primary visual cortex is sufficient to explain broad inhibition with an OFF-subregion bias while generating a variety of phase relations, including antiphase, between excitation and inhibition in response to drifting gratings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据