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

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.

[1]  G. Orban,et al.  Processing of kinetically defined boundaries in areas V1 and V2 of the macaque monkey. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  Visual response latencies in striate cortex of the macaque monkey. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  David Regan,et al.  Shape Discrimination for Motion-Defined and Contrast-Defined form: Squareness is Special , 1991, Perception.

[4]  B. Richmond,et al.  Latency: another potential code for feature binding in striate cortex. , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  Anna W. Roe,et al.  The Functional Architecture of Area V2 in the Macaque Monkey , 1997 .

[6]  J. M. Hupé,et al.  Cortical feedback improves discrimination between figure and background by V1, V2 and V3 neurons , 1998, Nature.

[7]  D. Regan,et al.  Dissociation of orientation discrimination from form detection for motion-defined bars and luminance-defined bars: Effects of dot lifetime and presentation duration , 1992, Vision Research.

[8]  Leo L. Lui,et al.  First‐ and second‐order stimulus length selectivity in New World monkey striate cortex , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[9]  D Regan,et al.  Form from motion parallax and form from luminance contrast: vernier discrimination. , 1986, Spatial vision.

[10]  R. Malach,et al.  Relationship between orientation domains, cytochrome oxidase stripes, and intrinsic horizontal connections in squirrel monkey area V2. , 1994, Cerebral cortex.

[11]  D J Felleman,et al.  Modular Organization of Occipito-Temporal Pathways: Cortical Connections between Visual Area 4 and Visual Area 2 and Posterior Inferotemporal Ventral Area in Macaque Monkeys , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  R. von der Heydt,et al.  Mechanisms of contour perception in monkey visual cortex. I. Lines of pattern discontinuity , 1989, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[13]  Marcello G P Rosa,et al.  Preparation for the in vivo recording of neuronal responses in the visual cortex of anaesthetised marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). , 2003, Brain research. Brain research protocols.

[14]  E. Peterhans,et al.  Functional Organization of Area V2 in the Alert Macaque , 1993, The European journal of neuroscience.

[15]  A. Leventhal,et al.  Neural correlates of boundary perception , 1998, Visual Neuroscience.

[16]  J. B. Levitt,et al.  Receptive fields and functional architecture of macaque V2. , 1994, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  G. Elston,et al.  The second visual area in the marmoset monkey: Visuotopic organisation, magnification factors, architectonical boundaries, and modularity , 1997, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[18]  C. Hung,et al.  Real and illusory contour processing in area V1 of the primate: a cortical balancing act. , 2001, Cerebral cortex.

[19]  M Fahle,et al.  Feature-specific electrophysiological correlates of texture segregation , 2003, Vision Research.

[20]  D. Mackay,et al.  Differential responsiveness of simple and complex cells in cat striate cortex to visual texture , 1977, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  W. Levick.  Variation in the response latency of cat retinal ganglion cells. , 1973, Vision research.

[22]  S. Zeki,et al.  The functional organization of area V2, I: Specialization across stripes and layers , 2002, Visual Neuroscience.

[23]  S. Zeki,et al.  The processing of kinetic contours in the brain. , 2003, Cerebral cortex.

[24]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  The modular organization of projections from areas V1 and V2 to areas V4 and TEO in macaques , 1993, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[25]  J. Baizer,et al.  Visual responses of area 18 neurons in awake, behaving monkey. , 1977, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  Marcello G P Rosa,et al.  Physiological responses of New World monkey V1 neurons to stimuli defined by coherent motion. , 2002, Cerebral cortex.