Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T16:17:08.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Topography and homogeneity of monkey VI studied through subdurally recorded pattern-evoked potentials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

Gislin Dagnlie ,
Henk Spekreijse  and
Bob van Dijk
Gislin Dagnlie
Affiliation:
Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Henk Spekreijse
Affiliation:
The Netherlands Ophthalmic Research Institute, Amsterdam
Bob van Dijk
Affiliation:
The Netherlands Ophthalmic Research Institute, Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using small checkerboard stimulus fields, we have recorded visually evoked potentials (VEPs) in an alert rhesus monkey from an array of 35 electrodes chronically implanted between dura and arachnoid to study mass neuronal activity in striate and peristriate visual cortex. Although the principal purpose of this work was to study in detail cortical mapping in this particular animal for future intracortical recordings, we report here the usefulness of our approach for the non-invasive study of cortical processing, in particular of cortical magnification and receptive-field properties over the central 6° of the visual field.

The striate and extrastriate components in the pattern onset VEP both have a double negative-going waveform, with N–P–N peak latencies of 75–100–135 ms and 90–115–160 ms, respectively, for small element sizes and moderate contrasts; latencies may be 5 ms shorter for large element sizes and high contrast. We found little activity at electrode locations over visual areas beyond V2. The waveforms and timing permit some careful speculation concerning intracortical processing and VEP generation.

The complex logarithmic form of the retinotopical projection provides a satisfactory model for our data, if a value of 1–1.2° is used for the offset parameter a. Our data suggest that the most abundant receptive-field size in foveal striate cortex has a center diameter of 12′. This size remains constant up to 2° eccentricity, and increases only slowly up to 4°. The smallest receptive-field sizes seem to be independent of eccentricity, throughout the central 4° of Vl, with a value of 4–8′, in agreement with single-cell data reported by Dow et al. (1981) and Van Essen et al. (1984).

Keywords

Visual cortexCortical magnificationVisually evoked potentialAlert monkeyImplanted electrodes
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , December 1989 , pp. 509 - 525
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

Ary, J.P., Klein, S.A. & Fender, D.H. (1981). Location of sources of evoked scalp potentials: corrections for skull and scalp thickness. IEEE-BME, 28, 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, H.B. (1953). Summation and inhibition in the frog's retina. Journal of Physiology, 119, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dagnelie, G. (1986). Pattern and motion processing in primate visual cortex. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Dagnelie, G., Maier, J., van Dijk, B.W. & Spekrelise, H. (1986 a). The application of principal components analysis to electrophysiological mass responses. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 27S, 243.Google Scholar
Dagnelie, G., de Vries, M.J., Maier, J. & Spekreijse, H. (1986 b). Pattern reversal stimuli: motion or contrast? Documenta Ophthalmologica, 61, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniel, P.M. & Whitteridge, D. (1961). The representation of the visual field on the cerebral cortex in monkeys. Journal of Physiology, 159, 203–221.Google Scholar
Dow, B.M., Snyder, A.Z., Vautin, R.G. & Bauer, R. (1981). Magnification factor and receptive-field size in foveal striate cortex of monkey. Experimental Brain Research, 44, 213–228.Google Scholar
Dow, B.M., Vautin, R.G. & Bauer, R. (1985). The mapping of visual space onto foveal striate cortex in the macaque monkey. Journal of Neuroscience, 5, 890–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drasdo, N. (1977). The neural representation of visual space. Nature, 266, 554–556.Google Scholar
Drasdo, N. (1980). Cortical potentials evoked by pattern presentation in the foveal region. In Evoked Potentials, ed. Barber, C., pp. 167–174. Lancaster: MTP Press and Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Jones, R. & Keck, M.J. (1978). Visual-evoked response as a function of grating spatial frequency. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 17, 652–659.Google ScholarPubMed
Maier, J., Dagnelie, G. & Spekrelijse, H. (1984). Source estimation of cortical responses to pattern stimuli in alert rhesus monkey using principal component analysis. Neuroscience Letters, 18S, S74.Google Scholar
Maier, J., Dagnelie, G., Spekreijse, H. & Van, Dijk B. (1987). Principal components analysis for source localization of VEPs in man. Vision Research, 27, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peichl, L. & Wässle, H. (1979). Size, scatter and coverage of ganglion cell receptive-field centres in the cat retina. Journal of Physiology, 291, 117–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rovamo, J. & Virsu, V. (1979). An estimation and application of the human cortical magnification tactor. Experimental Brain Research,37, 495–510.Google Scholar
Rush, S. & Driscoll, D.A. (1969). EEG electrode Sensitivity–an application of reciprocity. IEEE-BME, 16, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, E.L. (1980). Computational anatomy and functional architecture of striate cortex: a spatial mapping approach to perceptual coding. Vision Research, 20, 645–669.Google Scholar
Schwartz, E.L., Shaw, A. & Weinshall, D. (1987). Flattening visual cortex at image resolution: quantitative computer reconstruction of the macaque ocular dominance column pattern. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 13, 1043.Google Scholar
Shapley, R.M. & Enroth-Cugell, C. (1984). Visual adaptation and retinal gain controls. In Progress in retinal research, Vol. 3, ed. Osborne, N.N. & Chader, G.J., pp. 263–346. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Shapley, R.M. & Victor, J.D. (1979). The contrast gain control of the cat retina. Vision Research, 19, 431–434.Google Scholar
Tootell, R.B.H., Switkes, E., Silverman, M.S. & Hamilton, S.L. (1988 a). Functional anatomy of macaque striate cortex, II: Retinotopic organization. Journal of Neuroscience, 8, 1531–1568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tootell, R.B.H., Hamilton, S.L. & Switkes, E. (1988 b). Functional anatomy of macaque striate cortex, IV: Contrast and magno-parvo streams. Journal of Neuroscience, 8, 1594–1609.Google Scholar
Tootell, R.B.H., Silverman, M.S., Hamilton, S.L., Switkes, E. & De, Valois R.I. (1988 c). Functional anatomy of macaque Striate cortex, V: Spatial frequency. Journal of Neuroscience, 8, 1610–1624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van, Der Marel E.H., Dagnelie, G. & Spekreijse, H. (1981). Pattern-evoked potentials in awake rhesus monkeys. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 21, 457–466.Google Scholar
Van, Der Marel E.H., Dagnelie, G. & Spekreijse, H. (1984). Subdurally recorded pattern and luminance EPs in the alert rhesus monkey. EEG Clinical Neurophysiology, 57, 354–368.Google Scholar
Van, Dijk B., Dagnelie, G. & Spekreijse, H. (1986). Pattern responses from monkey primary visual cortex: retinotopic map and receptive-field properties. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 12, 1497.Google Scholar
Van, Essen D.C. & Maunsell, J.H.R. (1980). Two-dimensional maps of the cerebral cortex. Journal of Comparative Neurology 191, 255–281.Google Scholar
Van, Essen D.C., Newsome, W.T. & Maunsell, J.H.R. (1984). The visual field representation in striate cortex of the macaque monkey: asymmetries, anisotropies, and individual variability. Vision Research 24, 429–448.Google Scholar
Wurtz, R.H. (1969). Visual receptive fields of striate cortex neurons in awake monkeys. Journal of Neurophysiology, 32, 727–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed