Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Luminance coding of briefly presented stimuli in area 17 of the rhesus monkey

Luminance coding of briefly presented stimuli in area 17 of the rhesus monkey 1982. Printed in U.S.A. WILLIAM M. MAGUIRE JOAN S. BAIZER State University of New York, Division of Neurobiology, Department of Physiology, Amherst, New York 14226 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 1. Single cells 17 of the alert rhesusmonkey were classified according to their sensitivity to variations in stimulus orientation, color, direction of movement. The sensitivity of the cells to stimulus was then tested using moving bars large stationary spots presented for 500 ms. The of the stimulus was varied over trials; background was kept constant. Short stimulus durations long intertrial intervals were chosen to minimize changes in light adaptation, thus compare responses to briey presented stimuli of different s at a constant mesopic adaptation level (0.15 ft-L). Moving bars were chosen so as to be of optimal orientation for orientation-specific cells. 2. Orientation-specific cells differ from cells without orientation specificity in the range of stimulus s over which they respond differentially. Generally, orientation-specific cells show response saturation at s 2-10 s the background . Cells without orientation specificity respond differentially over a larger range; some of these cells did not show response saturation within the range tested. 3. We conclude that under conditions of constant light adaptation, the of a brief http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Neurophysiology The American Physiological Society

Luminance coding of briefly presented stimuli in area 17 of the rhesus monkey

Loading next page...
 
/lp/the-american-physiological-society/luminance-coding-of-briefly-presented-stimuli-in-area-17-of-the-rhesus-hTwTJz3xwo

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
The American Physiological Society
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 the American Physiological Society
ISSN
0022-3077
eISSN
1522-1598
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

1982. Printed in U.S.A. WILLIAM M. MAGUIRE JOAN S. BAIZER State University of New York, Division of Neurobiology, Department of Physiology, Amherst, New York 14226 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 1. Single cells 17 of the alert rhesusmonkey were classified according to their sensitivity to variations in stimulus orientation, color, direction of movement. The sensitivity of the cells to stimulus was then tested using moving bars large stationary spots presented for 500 ms. The of the stimulus was varied over trials; background was kept constant. Short stimulus durations long intertrial intervals were chosen to minimize changes in light adaptation, thus compare responses to briey presented stimuli of different s at a constant mesopic adaptation level (0.15 ft-L). Moving bars were chosen so as to be of optimal orientation for orientation-specific cells. 2. Orientation-specific cells differ from cells without orientation specificity in the range of stimulus s over which they respond differentially. Generally, orientation-specific cells show response saturation at s 2-10 s the background . Cells without orientation specificity respond differentially over a larger range; some of these cells did not show response saturation within the range tested. 3. We conclude that under conditions of constant light adaptation, the of a brief

Journal

Journal of NeurophysiologyThe American Physiological Society

Published: Jan 1, 1982

There are no references for this article.