Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 162, Issue 1, pp 100–108 | Cite as

Single-unit responses to kinetic stimuli in New World monkey area V2: Physiological characteristics of cue-invariant neurones

  • L. L. Lui
  • J. A. Bourne
  • M. G. P. RosaEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

In order to investigate the neural processes underlying figure-ground segregation on the basis of motion, we studied the responses of neurones in the second visual area (V2) of marmoset monkeys to stimuli that moved against dynamic textured backgrounds. The stimuli were either “solid” bars, which were uniformly darker or lighter than the background’s average, or kinetic (“camouflaged”) bars, formed by textural elements that matched the spatial and temporal modulation of the background. Camouflaged bars were rendered visible only by the coherent motion of their textural elements. Using solid bars, we subdivided the population of marmoset V2 neurones into motion-selective (uni- and bi-directional units, 73.3% of the sample) and weakly-biased (26.7%) subpopulations. The motion selective subpopulation was further subdivided into cue-invariant neurones (units which demonstrated a similar selectivity for the direction of motion of the solid and camouflaged bars) and non-cue-invariant neurones (units which showed selectivity to the direction of motion of solid bars, but had weak or pandirectional responses to camouflaged bars). Cells with cue-invariant responses to these stimuli were as common in V2 as in the primary visual area (V1; approximately 40% of the population). In V2, neurones with cue-invariant and non-cue-invariant motion selectivity formed distinct populations in terms of classical response properties: cue-invariant neurones were characterized by a sharp axis of motion selectivity and extensive length summation, while the majority of non-cue-invariant neurones had broader motion selectivity and were end-stopped. In the light of previous studies, these different constellations of classical response properties suggest a correlation with more traditionally recognized categories of V2 units and modular compartments. The responses of V2 cells to kinetic stimuli were slightly delayed relative to their responses to luminance-defined stimuli.

Keywords

Primate Visual cortex Cue invariance Motion selectivity Extrastriate Area 18 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Rowan Tweedale for comments on previous versions of the manuscript. Supported by project grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council, and by equipment grants from the Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation and ANZ Charitable Trust.

References

  1. Baizer JS, Robinson DL, Dow BM (1977) Visual responses of area 18 neurons in awake, behaving monkey. J Neurophysiol 40:1024–1037PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourne JA, Rosa MGP (2003) Preparation for the in vivo recording of neuronal responses in the visual cortex of anaesthetised marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Brain Res Protoc 11:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourne JA, Tweedale R, Rosa MGP (2002) Physiological responses of New World monkey V1 neurons to stimuli defined by coherent motion. Cereb Cortex 12:1132–1145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourne JA, Lui L, Tweedale R, Rosa MGP (2004) First- and second-order stimulus length selectivity in New World monkey striate cortex. Eur J Neurosci 19:169–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Fahle M, Quenzer T, Braun C, Spang K (2003) Feature-specific electrophysiological correlates of texture segregation. Vision Res 43:7–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Felleman DJ, Xiao Y, McClendon E (1997) Modular organization of occipito-temporal pathways: cortical connections between visual area 4 and visual area 2 and posterior inferotemporal ventral area in macaque monkeys. J Neurosci 17:3185–3200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gawne TJ, Kjaer TW, Richmond BJ (1996) Latency: another potential code for feature binding in striate cortex. J Neurophysiol 76:1356–1360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hammond P, MacKay DM (1977) Differential responsiveness of simple and complex cells in cat striate cortex to visual texture. Exp Brain Res 30:275–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hupé JM, James AC, Payne BR, Lomber SG, Girard P, Bullier J (1998) Cortical feedback improves discrimination between figure and background by V1, V2 and V3 neurons. Nature 394:784–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Leventhal AG, Wang YC, Schmolesky MT, Zhou YF (1998) Neural correlates of boundary perception. Vis Neurosci 15:1107–1118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Levick WR (1973) Variation in the response latency of cat retinal ganglion cells. Vision Res 13:837–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Levitt JB, Kiper DC, Movshon JA (1994) Receptive fields and functional architecture of macaque V2. J Neurophysiol 71:2517–2542PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Malach R, Tootell RB, Malonek D (1994) Relationship between orientation domains, cytochrome oxidase stripes, and intrinsic horizontal connections in squirrel monkey area V2. Cereb Cortex 4:151–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Marcar VL, Raiguel SE, Xiao D, Orban GA (2000) Processing of kinetically defined boundaries in areas V1 and V2 of the macaque monkey. J Neurophysiol 84:2786–2798PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Maunsell JH, Gibson JR (1992) Visual response latencies in striate cortex of the macaque monkey. J Neurophysiol 68:1332–1344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakamura H, Gattass R, Desimone R, Ungerleider LG (1993) The modular organization of projections from areas V1 and V2 to areas V4 and TEO in macaques. J Neurosci 13:3681–3691PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Peterhans E, Von der Heydt R (1993) Functional organization of area V2 in the alert macaque. Eur J Neurosci 5:509–524PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ramsden BM, Hung CP, Roe AW (2001) Real and illusory contour processing in area V1 of the primate: a cortical balancing act. Cereb Cortex 11:648–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Regan D (1986) Form from motion parallax and form from luminance contrast: vernier discrimination. Spatial Vision 1:305–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Regan D, Hamstra S (1991) Shape discrimination for motion-defined and contrast-defined form: squareness in special. Perception 20:315–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Regan D, Hamstra SJ (1992) Dissociation of orientation discrimination from form detection for motion-defined bars and luminance-defined bars: effects of dot lifetime and presentation duration. Vision Res 32:1655–1666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Roe AW, Ts’o DY (1997) The functional architecture of area V2 in the macaque monkey. In: Rockland KS, Kaas JH, Peters A (eds) Extrastriate cortex in primates. Plenum, New York, pp 295–333Google Scholar
  23. Rosa MGP, Fritsches KA, Elston GN (1997) The second visual area in the marmoset monkey: visuotopic organisation, magnification factors, architectonical boundaries, and modularity. J Comp Neurol 387:547–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Shipp S, Zeki S (2002) The functional organization of area V2, I: specialization across stripes and layers. Vis Neurosci 19:187–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Von der Heydt R, Peterhans E (1989) Mechanisms of contour perception in monkey visual cortex. I. Lines of pattern discontinuity. J Neurosci 9:1731–1748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeki S, Perry RJ, Bartels A (2003) The processing of kinetic contours in the brain. Cereb Cortex 13:189–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysiologyMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Monash University Centre for Brain and BehaviourMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations