Neural responses to visual texture patterns in middle temporal area of the macaque monkey.
Neural responses to visual texture patterns in middle temporal area of the macaque monkey.
复制标题
猕猴中颞区视觉纹理模式的神经反应。
DOI：
10.1152/jn.1992.68.1.164
复制
发表时间：
1992
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
vanEssen,DC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Olavarria,JF;DeYoe,EA;Knierim,JJ;Fox,JM;vanEssen,DC
1.我们研究了麻醉猕猴中颞叶视区(MT)神经元对纹理和非纹理视觉刺激的反应。刺激包含一个中心矩形图形，该图形亮度均匀或由一系列定向线段组成。这个人物在四个垂直方向中的一个方向上以恒定的速度移动。人物周围的区域要么亮度均匀，要么包含纹理阵列(其元素在方向上与人物的元素相同或垂直)，并且它要么是静止的，要么是随着人物移动的。2.纹理图形在静止的纹理背景(纹理条-刺激)上移动通常会引起强烈的神经反应，但平均而言，对纹理条的反应明显小于对实心(均匀亮度)条的反应。3.许多细胞表现出与织构条和实心条相似的方向选择性。然而，平均而言，使用织构棒时测得的方向选择性明显小于使用实心棒时测得的方向选择性，许多细胞完全失去了显著的方向选择性。纹理条方向选择性的降低通常反映了首选方向的响应性降低和无效(与首选相反)方向的响应性增加的共同作用。4.在没有纹理背景的情况下，对纹理条的反应(单独的纹理条-)在反应的大小和方向选择性程度上都与对实心条的反应非常相似。相反，将静态纹理环绕添加到移动的实心条上平均会降低方向选择性，而不会降低响应幅度。这些结果表明，静态环境在很大程度上导致了织构棒与实心棒在方向选择性上的差异。5.在所研究的大多数MT细胞中，对移动纹理条的反应在很大程度上与纹理条中的元素是与背景元素相同的方向还是与背景元素的垂直方向无关。因此，对于我们使用的这类刺激，方向对比度不会显著影响MT神经元对运动纹理模式的反应。6.使用实心棒和质地棒确定的最佳图形长度和长度调整曲线的形状在所研究的大多数细胞中都有显著差异。因此，MT中的神经元不是简单地选择特定的图形形状，而不是独立于用来描绘该图形的任何线索。
1. We studied how neurons in the middle temporal visual area (MT) of anesthetized macaque monkeys responded to textured and nontextured visual stimuli. Stimuli contained a central rectangular ,figure- that was either uniform in luminance or consisted of an array of oriented line segments. The figure moved at constant velocity in one of four orthogonal directions. The region surrounding the figure was either uniform in luminance or contained a texture array (whose elements were identical or orthogonal in orientation to those of the figure), and it either was stationary or moved along with the figure. 2. A textured figure moving across a stationary textured background (,texture bar- stimulus) often elicited vigorous neural responses, but, on average, the responses to texture bars were significantly smaller than to solid (uniform luminance) bars. 3. Many cells showed direction selectivity that was similar for both texture bars and solid bars. However, on average, the direction selectivity measured when texture bars were used was significantly smaller than that for solid bars, and many cells lost significant direction selectivity altogether. The reduction in direction selectivity for texture bars generally reflected a combination of decreased responsiveness in the preferred direction and increased responsiveness in the null (opposite to preferred) direction. 4. Responses to a texture bar in the absence of a texture background (,texture bar alone-) were very similar to the responses to solid bars both in the magnitude of response and in the degree of direction selectivity. Conversely, adding a static texture surround to a moving solid bar reduced direction selectivity on average without a reduction in response magnitude. These results indicate that the static surround is largely responsible for the differences in direction selectivity for texture bars versus solid bars. 5. In the majority of MT cells studied, responses to a moving texture bar were largely independent of whether the elements in the bar were of the same orientation as the background elements or of the orthogonal orientation. Thus, for the class of stimuli we used, orientation contrast does not markedly affect the responses of MT neurons to moving texture patterns. 6. The optimum figure length and the shapes of the length tuning curves determined with the use of solid bars and texture bars differed significantly in most of the cells examined. Thus neurons in MT are not simply selective for a particular figure shape independent of whatever cues are used to delineate the figure.