Search

We address two unresolved issues concerning the coding of binocular disparity in primary visual cortex. Experimental studies and theoretical models have suggested a relationship between a cell's ocular dominance, assessed with monocular stimuli, and its tuning to binocular disparity. First, the disparity energy model of disparity selectivity suggests that there should be a correlation between ocular dominance and the strength of disparity tuning. Second, several studies have reported a relationship between ocular dominance and the shape of the disparity tuning curve, with cells dominated by one eye more likely to have disparity tuning of the tuned-inhibitory type. We investigated both of these relationships in single neurons recorded from the primary visual cortex of awake fixating macaques, using dynamic random-dot patterns as a stimulus. To classify disparity tuning curves quantitatively, we develop a new measure of symmetry, which can be applied to any function. We find no evidence for any correlation between ocular dominance and the nature of disparity tuning. This places constraints on the circuitry underlying disparity tuning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disparity-selective neurons in striate cortex (V1) probably implement the initial processing that supports binocular vision. Recently, much progress has been made in understanding the computations that these neurons perform on retinal inputs. The binocular energy model has been highly successful in providing a simple theory of these computations. A key feature of the energy model is that it is linear until after inputs from the two eyes are combined. Recently, however, a modified version of the energy model, incorporating threshold nonlinearities before binocular combination, has been proposed to account for the weaker disparity tuning observed with anticorrelated stimuli. In this study, we present new data needed for a critical assessment of these two models. We compare two key predictions of the models with responses of disparity-selective neurons recorded from V1 of awake fixating monkeys. We find that the original energy model, and a family of generalizations retaining linear binocular combination, are quantitatively inconsistent with the response of V1 neurons. In contrast, the modified version incorporating threshold nonlinearities can explain both sets of observations. We conclude that the energy model can be reconciled with experimental observations by adding a threshold before binocular combination. This gives us the clearest picture yet of the computation being carried out by disparity-selective V1 neurons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One difficulty with measuring receptive fields in the awake monkey is that even well-trained animals make small eye movements during fixation. These complicate the measurement of receptive fields by blurring out the region where a response is observed, causing underestimates of the ability of individual neurons to signal changes in stimulus position. In simple cells, this blurring may severely disrupt estimates of receptive field structure. An accurate measurement of eye movements would allow correction of this blurring. Scleral search coils have been used to provide such measurements, although little is known about their accuracy. We have devised a range of approaches to address this issue: implanting two coils into a single eye, exploiting the small size of V1 receptive fields and developing maximum-likelihood fitting techniques to extract receptive field parameters in the presence of eye movements. All our investigations lead to the same conclusion: our scleral search coils (which were not sutured to the globe) are subject to an error of approximately the same magnitude as the small eye movements which occur during fixation: SD approximately 0.1 degrees. This error is large enough to explain the SD of measured vergence in the absence of any real changes in vergence state. This, and a variety of other arguments, indicate that the real variation in vergence is much smaller than coil measurements suggest. These results suggest that monkeys, like humans, maintain very stable vergence. The error has a slower time course than fixational eye movements so that search coils report the difference in eye position between two consecutive trials more accurately than the eye position itself on either trial. Receptive field estimates are unlikely to be improved by assuming the coil record is veridical and correcting for eye position accordingly. However, receptive field parameters can reliably be determined by a fitting technique that allows for eye movements. It is possible that suturing coils to the globe reduces the artifacts, but no method has been available to demonstrate this. These receptive field measurements provide a general means by which the reliability of eye-position measurements can be assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]