WWW.JNEUROSCI.ORG
-
The Journal of Neuroscience behavioral testing systems
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
-


HOME  |   SEARCH  |   ARCHIVE  |   SUBSCRIBE  |   CONTACT  |   HELP
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (154)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Angelucci, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lund, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Angelucci, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lund, J. S.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
*Compound via MeSH
*Substance via MeSH
Hazardous Substances DB
*BIOTIN

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

The Journal of Neuroscience, October 1, 2002, 22(19):8633-8646

Circuits for Local and Global Signal Integration in Primary Visual Cortex

Alessandra Angelucci1, Jonathan B. Levitt2, Emma J. S. Walton3, Jean-Michel Hupé4, Jean Bullier4, and Jennifer S. Lund1

1 Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, 2 Department of Biology, City College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10031, 3 Department of Visual Sciences, Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London EC1V 9EL, United Kingdom, and 4 Centre de Recherche Cerveau et Cognition, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique-Unité Propre de Recherche Unité Mixte de Recherche 5549, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse 31062, France


    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Contrast-dependent changes in spatial summation and contextual modulation of primary visual cortex (V1) neuron responses to stimulation of their receptive field reveal long-distance integration of visual signals within V1, well beyond the classical receptive field (cRF) of single neurons. To identify the cortical circuits mediating these long-distance computations, we have used a combination of anatomical and physiological recording methods to determine the spatial scale and retinotopic logic of intra-areal V1 horizontal connections and inter-areal feedback connections to V1. We have then compared the spatial scales of these connectional systems to the spatial dimensions of the cRF, spatial summation field (SF), and modulatory surround field of macaque V1 neurons. We find that monosynaptic horizontal connections within area V1 are of an appropriate spatial scale to mediate interactions within the SF of V1 neurons and to underlie contrast-dependent changes in SF size. Contrary to common beliefs, these connections cannot fully account for the dimensions of the surround field. The spatial scale of feedback circuits from extrastriate cortex to V1 is, instead, commensurate with the full spatial range of center-surround interactions. Thus these connections could represent an anatomical substrate for contextual modulation and global-to-local integration of visual signals. Feedback projections connect corresponding and equal-sized regions of the visual field in striate and extrastriate cortices and cover anisotropic parts of visual space, unlike V1 horizontal connections that are isotropic in the macaque. V1 isotropic connectivity demonstrates that anisotropic horizontal connections are not necessary to generate orientation selectivity. Anisotropic feedback connections may play a role in contour completion.

Key words: primary visual cortex; extrastriate cortex; feedback connections; lateral connections; surround modulation; macaque


    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

A central question in visual cortical processing is how local signals are integrated across space to generate global percepts. Traditionally, visual information has been seen as ascending through a hierarchy of cortical areas, with cells at each successive stage processing inputs from increasingly larger regions of space. However, long-distance integration of visual signals can occur at very early stages of processing. The response of cells in the primary visual cortex (V1) to stimulation of their receptive field (RF) can be modulated in a selective way by contextual stimuli lying far outside the RF in the RF surround (Blakemore and Tobin 1972; Nelson and Frost, 1978; Allman et al., 1985; Gilbert and Wiesel, 1990; Levitt and Lund, 1997; Walker et al., 1999). Furthermore, V1 RFs show dynamic spatial properties, changing in size depending on stimulus contrast (Kapadia et al., 1999; Sceniak et al., 1999). These neurophysiological responses require integration of visual signals beyond the RF of single V1 neurons and thus cannot be easily explained by classical RF concepts. Identifying the neural circuitry underlying these long-distance computations is crucial, because they may represent the neural substrates for feature grouping (Kapadia et al., 1995; Mizobe et al., 2001) and figure-ground segregation (Knierim and Van Essen, 1992; Nothdurft et al., 1999).

Currently, most models of center-surround interaction in V1 are based on intrinsic horizontal (or lateral) connections (Gilbert et al., 1996; Somers et al., 2002). These are long-range, reciprocal, intralaminar projections made by excitatory neurons in layers 2/3, 4B/upper 4Calpha , and 5/6 of macaque area V1 (Rockland and Lund, 1983). These connections show a periodic, patchy pattern of termination and preferentially link cortical domains of similar functional properties (Malach et al., 1993; Yoshioka et al., 1996). On the basis of laminar origin and termination, connections between visual cortical areas have been classified as feedforward (FF) or feedback (FB), and a hierarchical organization of cortical areas has been proposed previously (Rockland and Pandya, 1979; Felleman and Van Essen, 1991). V1, at the bottom of the hierarchy, receives its main FF inputs from the thalamus and sends partially segregated FF projections to several extrastriate cortical areas, which, in turn, send FB projections to V1. It has been suggested that FB connections have a less precise retinotopic organization than FF projections (Perkel et al., 1986; Salin and Bullier, 1995), and that only FF inputs can drive V1 neurons, whereas FB connections would have a modulatory influence (Crick and Koch, 1998). FB connections may therefore represent an additional or alternative substrate for contextual modulation in V1.

The aim of this study was to provide a basis for disentangling the relative roles of inter-areal FB and intra-areal horizontal connections in integrating signals within and beyond the RF of V1 neurons. We reasoned that to mediate interactions within or beyond the RF, a given connectional system must be commensurate with the spatial extent of the RF or modulatory surround field of the neuron. Thus, we have compared the visuotopic scale of each connectional system with the spatial extent of the classical RF, spatial summation field (SF), and modulatory surround field of macaque V1 neurons. Our results demonstrate that monosynaptic V1 horizontal connections are of an appropriate scale to mediate interactions within the SF and could represent an anatomical substrate for dynamic changes in SF size such as induced by stimulus contrast or scotomata (Das and Gilbert, 1995). FB circuits from extrastriate cortex to V1, on the other hand, are of an appropriate scale to play an important role in global integration of visual signals and modulation of responses far beyond the SF of V1 cells.

Parts of this work have been published previously in abstract form (Angelucci et al., 1998, 2000).


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Electrophysiological recording. In a first set of animals, quantitative electrophysiological recording terminal experiments were performed on seven adult macaque monkeys (Macaca fascicularis or M. mulatta). All procedures conformed to British Home Office and United States National Institute of Health guidelines. Animals were premedicated with atropine sulfate (0.02-0.04 mg/kg) and acepromazine maleate (0.05 mg/kg) and preanesthetized with ketamine (10-30 mg/kg, i.m.). The trachea and saphenous veins were cannulated; the animal was artificially ventilated with room air or with a 50:50 mixture of O2 and N2O; and anesthesia was maintained by continuous intravenous infusion of sufentanil citrate (4-8 µg · kg-1 · hr-1). The animal's head was fixed to a stereotaxic apparatus; a small craniotomy and durotomy were made over the occipital cortex; and a tungsten-in-glass microelectrode (Merril and Ainsworth, 1972) was positioned over the exposed cortex, which was then covered with warm agar. To minimize eye movements, on completion of surgery, the animal was paralyzed by continuous intravenous infusion of vecuronium bromide (0.1 mg · kg-1 · hr-1) in lactated Ringer's solution with glucose (5.4 ml/hr). Electroencephalogram and electrocardiogram were monitored continuously. Peak expired CO2 was maintained near 4.0%, rectal temperature near 37°C, and blood oxygenation near 100%.

The pupils were dilated and accommodation paralyzed with topical atropine; the corneas were protected with zero power rigid gas-permeable contact lenses; and the eyes were refracted. The location of the foveas was plotted (and checked periodically throughout the experiment) on a tangent screen using a reversible ophthalmoscope. Extracellular recordings were made in the opercular region of area V1 between 2 and 8° retinal eccentricity in the lower visual field. Spikes were conventionally amplified and displayed and stored on a personal computer (resolution, 250 µsec). Small electrolytic lesions (1-2 µA for 2-5 sec) were made along the electrode track and later reconstructed on Nissl- and cytochrome oxidase (CO)-stained tissue sections. For quantitative studies, visual stimuli were displayed on a Barco ICD 451B color TV monitor driven by an AT Truevision Vista Graphics board. At a viewing distance of 114 cm, the screen subtended 13 × 13° of visual angle. Stimuli consisted of square patches of drifting achromatic sinusoidal gratings of average luminance of 37.5 cd/m2. Contrast was held fixed at 75% (i.e., below response saturation for most cells).

The location and size of the classical RF or minimum response field (mrf; Barlow et al., 1967) of the neuron were initially hand-mapped through the dominant eye; this was then confirmed by computer mapping. All subsequent quantitative experiments proceeded under computer control. The preferred orientation, direction of motion, spatial and temporal frequency, and size of stimuli of the neuron were determined. The optimal parameters for the recorded cell were then used to measure RF and surround sizes. Stimuli were presented for 2-4 sec within each block of trials in a randomized order, and results of four to eight repeated blocks were averaged. To measure the spontaneous firing rate of the cell, interleaved blanks of the same mean luminance as the stimuli were presented. To spatial summation data we fit functions representing a difference of the integrals of excitatory and inhibitory Gaussian mechanisms (Sceniak et al., 2001) as described in detail by Levitt and Lund (2002). From these functions we determined the stimulus diameter at which responses peaked and asymptoted. Population values are expressed as mean ± SEM. Statistical significance of laminar variation was tested with the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Combined tracer injections and physiological recording. In a separate set of animals, combined anatomical and electrophysiological recording survival experiments were performed on nine adult macaque monkeys (M. fascicularis or M. mulatta). Tracer injections (n = 17, all clearly confined to the cortical gray matter) were made in electrophysiologically characterized cortical loci between 2.2 and 7.5° eccentricity in the lower visual field representation of areas V1, V2, or V3. The animals were prepared as described above, intubated, and anesthetized with 0.5-2% isoflurane in a 70:30 mixture of N2O and O2 (three animals were anesthetized with Sufentanil as described above). Fluids (lactated Ringer's solution at 1-2 ml · kg-1 · hr-1) were continuously infused intravenously to support cardiovascular function. Monitoring of vital signs, surgery, recordings, and hand plotting of RFs were performed as described above. A short-duration topical mydriatic agent (cyclopentolate) was applied to the corneas, and the eyes were fitted with contact lenses.

Areas V2 and V3 were identified electrophysiologically using the known sequence of gray-white matter transitions as described previously (Gegenfurtner et al., 1997). Corresponding retinotopic loci in V1 and V2 were identified in three animals as described by Hupé et al. (2001b). Once the appropriate cortical sites were found, the position of the microelectrode was recorded, the electrode was withdrawn, and the animal was paralyzed by intravenous infusion of vecuronium bromide (0.1 mg · kg-1 · hr-1, with a loading dose of 1 hr). The foveas were plotted, and a foveal mrf was mapped in V1 (and periodically throughout the experiment) to monitor eye movements. A recording electrode glued to a glass micropipette (intertip distance, <50 µm; Hupé et al., 1999) filled with a tracer solution was lowered into the same striate or extrastriate locus where the initial recordings were performed. RF size and eccentricity of cells through the depth of the penetration were first remapped, and then the tracer was injected through the attached pipette (inner tip diameter, 13-17 µm). The tracers used were cholera toxin subunit B [CTB, low salt; List Biologic, Campbell, CA; 1% in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (PB), pH 6.0] or biotinylated dextran amine (BDA, MW 3000; Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR; 10% in 0.01 M PB, pH 7.25). The tracers were delivered iontophoretically using 2 µA for CTB and 6 µA for BDA of positive current in 7 sec on-off cycles for 10-30 min. CTB was preferred for these studies, because its sensitive anterograde and retrograde transport reveals reciprocal connections to an injected point (Angelucci et al., 1996). However, in some cases BDA was used to compare the extent of the label with CTB. At the end of the injection, to avoid leakage of tracer along the pipette track, the pipette was left in place for at least 30 min and then withdrawn while reversing the current to negative. In five V1 and three V2 injection cases (n = 4 animals), after the tracer injection in physiologically characterized loci, additional recordings were made of RF size and location along a few electrode penetrations made at 1 mm intervals around the injection site; recording sites were marked by electrolytic lesions. In all remaining cases (n = 5 V1 and 4 V3 injections) recordings were made only at the injection site; retinotopic maps in these cases could not be recorded because of lack of time and need to recover the animal. The animal was recovered from paralysis and anesthesia, allowed to survive for 10-20 d, and finally killed with an overdose of sodium pentobarbital (100 mg/kg, i.v.) and perfused transcardially with saline followed by 4% paraformaldehyde in 0.1 M PB, pH 7.4, for 30 min.

Areas V1 and V2 were dissected free, flattened between glass slides, postfixed overnight, cryoprotected by sinking in 30% phosphate-buffered sucrose, and finally sectioned on a freezing microtome at 40 µm tangentially to the pial surface. The block containing areas V3 and MT was similarly postfixed and cryoprotected, and then cut parasagittally. CTB was revealed immunohistochemically using the protocol of Angelucci et al. (1996); BDA was revealed using standard Vector Laboratories (Burlingame, CA) ABC VIP-based reactions. Some (n = 3) animals received an injection of CTB and one of BDA in corresponding retinotopic loci in areas V1 and V2. In these brains, CTB was revealed using a standard peroxidase-antiperoxidase method (Lanciego et al., 1998). To reveal areal and layer boundaries, interleaved sections were stained for CO (one in three sections of tissue containing areas V1 and V2) or for myelin (Gallyas, 1979) or Nissl substance (one in five sections, for each method, of tissue containing V3 and MT).

Data analysis. CTB and BDA anterograde and retrograde labels were mapped in each available section using a camera lucida. Layer boundaries were identified and drawn by overlaying the maps of the label to adjacent CO- or Nissl-stained sections. Areal boundaries were identified using the pattern of CO staining (for V1 and V2) or Gallyas staining (for V3 and MT) as well as the specific pattern of anterograde and retrograde label. Surface-view two-dimensional (2D) composite reconstructions of the label were made separately for each V1 and V2 layer by overlaying maps of serial tangential sections using vascular landmarks as alignment points. Surface-view reconstructions of the label in V3 and MT were made from serial sagittal sections as described in detail previously (Johnson et al., 1989). Briefly, the mapped label in each section was projected onto a line running through midlayer 4, using a radial segmentation scheme, and serial sections were aligned using a combination of sulcal and vascular landmarks. Cells were counted, and plots of label density were computer-generated. Typically, label density showed a Gaussian-like distribution. Our definition of a labeled field included all bins with label density within 95% of the peak density (see Fig. 4). For eight injections (five in V1 and three in V2), the density maps of the V1 and V2 label were overlaid to physiological maps obtained from the same animal in these two cortical areas, using the location of electrolytic lesions as alignment points; the visuotopic extent of the labeled fields was measured directly on the retinotopic maps as well as estimated as described below.

In all remaining cases (n = 5 V1 and 4 V3 injection cases) in which retinotopic maps were not recorded, the visuotopic extent of labeled connectional fields was estimated as follows. All labeled fields in striate and extrastriate cortex were anisotropic in cortical space their long axis corresponding to the cortical area elevation axis, and to the axis of anisotropy of the magnification factor (MF), demonstrated at least for V1 (where it runs parallel to the vertical meridian; Van Essen et al., 1984; Tootell et al., 1988; Blasdel and Campbell, 2001) and V2 (where it runs orthogonal to the CO stripes; Roe and Ts'o, 1995). We measured the density map of each labeled field along (elevation axis) and across (azimuth axis) the representation of the isopolar lines of the visual field, using as a reference published retinotopic maps of striate cortex (Van Essen et al., 1984; Dow et al., 1985; Tootell et al., 1988) and extrastriate cortex [V2 (Gattas et al., 1981; Roe and Ts'o, 1995), V3 (Burkhalter et al., 1986; Gattas et al., 1988), and MT (Albright and Desimone, 1987; Maunsell and Van Essen, 1987)]. Cortical measurements were corrected for tissue shrinkage caused by histological processing. This was estimated on a case-by-case basis for 12 of 17 injections using the measured in vivo distance between electrolytic lesions, between injection sites, or both. In our hands, shrinkage caused by CTB and BDA processing ranged in different cases between 30-33 and 8-13%, respectively. We also estimated shrinkage caused by perfusion and cryoprotection (~12%) and applied this correction factor to the intersection distance, i.e., to the anteroposterior dimension of the 2D maps obtained from serial sagittal section reconstructions (see Fig. 4). For five injections in which shrinkage could not be estimated directly, we applied a 30% shrinkage correction for CTB and 10% for BDA (a possible 2-3% error in shrinkage correction in these cases would not have affected our results). Knowing the cortical extent of labeled fields and the eccentricity of injection sites (recorded in all cases), to estimate the visuotopic extent of the two axes of label, we used published equations relating MF and scatter (S) in RF center position to retinal eccentricity in areas V1-V5. For labeled fields within V1, we used equations from Van Essen et al. (1984) and Tootell et al. (1988), because these authors measured MF separately along and across the isopolar axis of V1. Because MF and S are constant along isoeccentricity contours, the linear visuotopic extent (designated D°) (Fig. 1a) of the axis of the labeled field along these contours was estimated as:
D<SUP>°</SUP><SUB>(<UP>deg</UP>)</SUB>=D<SUB>(<UP>mm</UP>)</SUB>/MF<SUB>(<UP>mm/deg</UP>)</SUB>+S<SUB>(<UP>deg</UP>)</SUB>, (1)
where D(mm) (Fig. 1b) is the measured length (in millimeters) of the labeled field along the isoeccentricity axis, and S was estimated at the injection eccentricity using the equation from Dow et al. (1981). Because retinal eccentricity (E), and thus MF and S, vary along the isopolar axis, we determined the retinotopic location of the end points of this axis of label, denoted as E+ and E-, respectively (Fig. 1a; with E+ > E-) by integrating the equations (Van Essen et al., 1984; Tootell et al., 1988) relating MF to E along the isopolar axis of V1. Thus, for example, integrating equation MF(E) = aE-b mm/°, from Van Essen et al. (1984), it follows that:
E<SUB>+</SUB>=<FENCE><FR><NU>a</NU><DE>aE<SUP>1−b</SUP><SUB>c</SUB>−(b−1)&Dgr;X<SUB>+</SUB></DE></FR></FENCE><SUP><FR><NU>1</NU><DE>b−1</DE></FR></SUP>, E<SUB>−</SUB>=<FENCE><FR><NU>a</NU><DE>aE<SUP>1−b</SUP><SUB>c</SUB>+(b−1)&Dgr;X<SUB>−</SUB></DE></FR></FENCE><SUP><FR><NU>1</NU><DE>b−1</DE></FR></SUP>, (2)
where a and b are constants, Ec is the physiologically recorded eccentricity (in degrees) of the injection site or of the center of the long axis of the label (Fig. 1a), and Delta X+ and Delta X- are the measured cortical separation (in millimeters) of the two end points (X+ and X-) from the center, Xc (Fig. 1b).



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1.   Estimated extent of corticocortical connectional fields in visual field coordinates. a, Visual field measurements. VM, HM, Vertical and horizontal meridian, respectively. Ec, Retinal eccentricity of the center of the injection site or of the labeled field determined experimentally for all cases by electrophysiological recording. E+, E-, estimated retinal eccentricity of RF center of cells at the end points of the axis of the labeled field (see Eq. 2). Dashed circles, Mean RF size of neurons at the eccentricity of the end points of the labeled field, measured experimentally in the same or different animals. D°, estimated linear visuotopic extent of the axis of the labeled field (gray circle diameter). ARF, Aggregate receptive field size of the labeled field's axis, calculated as D° + mean RF size of cells at the end points of the labeled field. b, Cortical measurements. Xc, Cortical location of the injection site or of the center of the labeled field. X+, X-, Cortical location of cells at the end points of the labeled field's axis. Delta X+, Delta X-, Measured cortical distance of the end points of the labeled field from the center. D(mm), Measured cortical extent of the axis of the labeled field (gray oval diameter).

The linear visuotopic extent (D°) for the long axis of label is then given by:
D<SUP>°</SUP><SUB>(<UP>deg</UP>)</SUB>=(E<SUB>+</SUB>−E<SUB>−</SUB>)<SUB>(<UP>deg</UP>)</SUB>+S<SUB>(<UP>deg</UP>)</SUB>. (3)
The aggregate receptive field size (ARF) (Fig. 1a) was calculated as:
ARF<SUB>(<UP>deg</UP>)</SUB>=D<SUP>°</SUP><SUB>(<UP>deg</UP>)</SUB>+mRF<SUB>(<UP>deg</UP>)</SUB>, (4)
where mRF is the mean RF size of cells at the end points of the axis of label, and can reflect the mrf or summation field of the neurons (see Results). We used our own physiological measures of RF sizes appropriate for the end points eccentricity and cortical layer location. These were measured either in the same animal in which the tracer injection was made or in a separate set of quantitative physiological experiments performed in different animals (see above).

Below we provide a detailed example of our estimates of the visuotopic extent of the injection site and resulting labeled horizontal connections for the case in Figure 6a. The V1 injection was made at 6.5° eccentricity in the lower visual field, 4° from the vertical meridian. D° along the anteroposterior (AP; i.e., isoeccentricity) axis of V1 was estimated substituting in Equation 1 the following values: D(mm) = 1.13 mm (measured cortical extent of injection site AP axis) or 4.34 mm (measured cortical extent of horizontal connections AP axis); MF (at E = 6.5°) = 1.3 mm/° (using equation MF = 13E-1.22 mm/°; Van Essen et al., 1984); and S (at E = 6.5°) = 0.16° (using equation S = 0.314 × mrf size -0.86 min; Dow et al., 1981).

D° of the injection site and resulting horizontal connections along the mediolateral (ML; i.e., isopolar) axis of V1 was estimated substituting in Equations 2 and 3 the following values: a and b = 11.7 and 1.01 (constants from equation MF = 11.7E-1.01 mm/°; Van Essen et al., 1984); Ec = 6.5° (physiologically recorded E of injection site); Delta X+ and Delta X- (for injection site) = 0.55 mm (measured cortical extent of injection site ML radius); Delta X+ and Delta X- (for horizontal connections) = 2.1 and 3.1 mm (measured cortical separation of furthest medial and lateral labeled points, respectively, from the injection center); and S (at E = 6.5°) = 0.16°.

From Equation 2 we obtained E+ and E- (for injection site) = 6.8 and 6.2°, and E+ and E- (for horizontal connections) = 7.8 and 4.97°. From Equations 1 and 3 we obtained D° (for injection site) = 1.03° (AP axis) × 0.78° (ML axis), and D° (for horizontal connections) = 3.5° (AP axis) × 3° (ML axis).

The ARF size of the V1 injection site in Figure 6a was calculated as follows: ARF of AP axis = D° of injection (1.03°) + mean RF size in V1 layer 2/3 at 6.5° eccentricity [mrf = 0.55°; high- and low-contrast summation field (SF) = 1.15 and 2.65°, respectively]. ARF of ML axis = D° of injection (0.78°) + mean RF size/2 in V1 layers 2/3 at E+ (6.8°) eccentricity (mrf = 0.56°; high- and low-contrast SF = 1.18 and 2.7°, respectively) + mean RF size/2 in V1 layers 2/3 at E- (6.2°) eccentricity (mrf = 0.54°; high and low contrast SF = 1.13° and 2.6°, respectively). RF sizes in this case were obtained from our own equations relating RF size to eccentricity in the different layers of V1 and derived from a separate set of quantitative physiological experiments (see above).

The above estimates were obtained using MF values from Van Essen et al. (1984). Although MF values reported by Tootell et al. (1988) and Blasdel and Campbell (2001) tend to be slightly larger than those of Van Essen et al (1984), applying MF values from these other authors to the above estimates yielded only slightly smaller values of D° and ARF size. Thus, for example, the aggregate high-contrast SF size of the V1 injection (along the ML axis) in Figure 6a measured 1.9° using the MF of Van Essen et al. (1984) but was 1.8° using the MF of Tootell et al. (1988). The ratio of D° of lateral connections to the aggregate high-contrast SF size of the V1 injection was 1.6 (for the ML axis) using the MF from Van Essen et al. (1984) and 1.3 using the MF from Tootell et al. (1988). Thus, using MFs in the literature from different authors, we observed minimal differences in our estimates.

For labeled fields within the central 5° of V2, we used MF and S values from Roe and Ts'o (1995), because they reported separate measures of MF along and across CO stripes. Published measurements of MF in more peripheral V2 (Gattas et al., 1981) and in V3 (Gattas et al., 1988) and MT (Albright and Desimone, 1987; Maunsell and Van Essen, 1987) are averaged across isopolar and isoeccentricity axes, thus not taking into account possible anisotropies in MF. Similar to V1 and V2, anatomical anisotropies of labeled connectional fields in areas V3 and MT likely reflect anisotropies in MF within these areas. Thus, for the label in more peripheral (>5°) V2 and for all labeled fields in V3 and MT, we estimated D° only for the long axis of the label field, substituting in Equation 1 the largest published values of MF (Gattas et al., 1981; Albright and Desimone, 1987; Gattas et al., 1988) at the retinal eccentricity of the injection site. The rationale for this choice was that the largest values of MF at a given retinal eccentricity most likely reflect MF values along the anisotropy axis. Using the largest values of MF might have caused us to underestimate the extent of retrogradely labeled FB fields in visual field coordinates. This error would not have altered our conclusions that the visuotopic extent of FB fields is larger than that of V1 intrinsic horizontal connections. To avoid introducing additional errors, we did not attempt to estimate the visuotopic extent of FB fields along their shorter axis or their visual field anisotropy; thus, the retrogradely labeled fields of cells of origin of FB connections in extrastriate cortex are represented in visual space as circles (see Fig. 7a) rather than ovals (as are the fields of V1 horizontal connections, or of terminal FB connections inV1) (see Figs. 6a, 7a, 8a,b). To estimate ARFs in V2 and V3, we used our own measures of mrf and summation field sizes (Levitt et al., 1994; Gegenfurtner et al., 1997; this study). MT RF sizes were taken from studies by Albright and Desimone (1987) and Maunsell and Van Essen (1987). Estimated sizes of D° and ARF were consistent with those determined physiologically (see Fig. 8a).


    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

In a first set of single-unit recording experiments, we determined quantitatively the spatial dimension of the RF and modulatory surround field of V1 cells. In a second set of combined anatomical and physiological experiments, we determined the visuotopic extent of V1 horizontal connections and of feedback connections from extrastriate cortex to V1 and compared them with V1 cells' receptive field and surround field sizes measured in the previous set of experiments. The two sets of experiments were performed in different animals but in the same region of visual space (2-8° retinal eccentricity in the lower visual field representation of V1).

Spatial extent of V1 neuron receptive field and modulatory surround field

Area summation curves were measured for 59 neurons sampled from all layers of macaque V1 (n = 18 in layers 2/3; n = 24 in layer 4; and n = 17 in layers 5/6) between 2 and 8° eccentricity. Of these cells, 69% had complex RFs; the rest were simple cells (for a detailed report of these data, see Levitt and Lund, 2002). A high-contrast (75%) drifting grating patch of optimal stimulus parameters for the recorded neuron was centered over the computer-mapped RF of the cell, and its diameter was systematically increased. We measured response amplitude as a function of stimulus diameter. Typically, responses increased with patch size to a peak and either asymptoted at the peak or showed response suppression as stimulus size was further increased (i.e., surround suppression) (Fig. 2a). We took as a measure of RF size the smallest stimulus diameter at peak response (Fig. 2a; we included in this analysis only cells that showed surround suppression). We refer to this measure of RF size as the high-contrast SF. SFs for our sample of V1 cells averaged 1.0 ± 0.1° (Fig. 2b), increased with retinal eccentricity (Fig. 2c, middle function), and showed no statistically significant variation across cortical layers despite a trend for the largest SFs to be found in deeper layers. These results on layer differences in SF sizes are consistent with those from other studies (Sceniak et al., 2001; Cavanaugh et al., 2002; Levitt and Lund, 2002). RF size has been shown to vary depending on the method and the stimulus contrast used to measure it. Figure 2c compares RF size as a function of eccentricity using three different test conditions. Figure 2c, middle function, shows our measure of high-contrast SF size as a function of retinal eccentricity. Figure 2c, bottom function, shows data from Dow et al. (1981), who measured RF size by moving a high-contrast bar of light and hand drawing the contours of the area of visual space that elicited spikes from the neuron. This measure of RF size is commonly known as mrf or "classical" RF (Barlow et al., 1967). Our mean high-contrast SFs were 2.2-fold greater than the mean mrf sizes of Dow et al. (1981). Furthermore, RF size depends on stimulus contrast (Kapadia et al., 1999; Sceniak et al., 1999). Sceniak et al. (1999) found that, for the same V1 cells, SFs were on average 2.3-fold greater when measured using low-contrast rather than high-contrast gratings (Fig. 2c, top function).



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2.   Extent of RF and surround field for a population of macaque V1 cells. a, Response of a representative V1 neuron to an optimal high-contrast grating patch of increasing diameter (top right symbol). Patch diameter at peak response (left arrow) was taken to be the size of the SF of the cell in b and c (middle function). Patch diameter at asymptotic response (right arrow) was taken to be the size of the surround field of the cell in d and e. b, Distribution of SF diameters for a population of V1 neurons (n = 59), measured as in a. Arrowhead, Mean. c, RF size as a function of retinal eccentricity measured under three different test conditions, each one indicated by symbols to the right of each line. Straight lines are regression lines. Middle function, SFs measured using expanding high-contrast (75%) gratings; data from this study (n = 59 cells). Bottom function, Hand-mapped mrf; based on data from Dow et al. (1981). Top function, SFs measured using expanding low-contrast gratings; based on data from Sceniak et al. (1999) and obtained by multiplying our high-contrast SF function (middle function) by 2.3. Stars, Means. d-f, Distributions of surround field diameters for a population of V1 cells measured under three different test conditions, each one indicated by top right symbols. d, Expanding high-contrast optimal grating stimulus, including only cells with suppressive surrounds (n = 59, same cells as in b; note different scale on x-axis in b and d). e, Optimal center grating stimulus surrounded by expanding most suppressive grating stimulus (n = 30, subset of cells in b and d). f, Optimal center grating and most suppressive surround grating stimuli plus blank annulus expanding in the surround (n = 30 cells, same cells as in e). Arrowheads in d-f, Means.

For the same V1 cells, we also measured the extent of the modulatory surround field using three different methods (Fig. 2d-f). Figure 2d shows the distribution of surround sizes measured for 59 neurons using expanding high-contrast gratings. As stimulus size increased beyond the high-contrast SF of the cells, responses decreased. Surround size was defined as the smallest stimulus diameter at which the response of the neuron asymptoted (Fig. 2a). Surround sizes ranged between 1.2 and >13° (13° was the largest stimulus diameter we could produce on our monitor), averaging 5.1 ± 0.6°. For a subset (n = 30) of these cells, surround sizes were measured using two additional methods. A center optimal grating stimulus was confined to a central region the size of the high-contrast SF of the cell and was surrounded by the most suppressive grating stimulus configuration (usually, but not always, a grating at the same orientation as in the center). We then systematically varied either the outer diameter of the surround stimulus from 0° (i.e., central stimulus alone) to 13° (diameter of the display screen) (Fig. 2e) or of a blank annulus introduced between the central stimulus and a full-field (13°) surround stimulus (Fig. 2f). Because the strength of surround suppression has been shown to be highest in the region abutting the RF center (Walker et al., 1999), by blanking out the region of maximal surround strength (as in Fig. 2f), we aimed at revealing the most remote surround influences. As surround outer diameter increased, responses decreased; as annulus outer diameter increased, responses increased. Surround and annulus outer diameters at which responses asymptoted were taken as measures of surround sizes (Fig. 2a,f, respectively). Under all test conditions, surround diameters were found to extend up to and >13°. However, different distributions and mean values [mean, 5.0 ± 0.6° (Fig. 2e) and 7.1 ± 0.2° (Fig. 2f)] were obtained with the different test methods, reflecting the fact that the surround region is most suppressive close to the RF. Thus, masking out the most suppressive near surround, as in Figure 2f, revealed more distant influences, whereas the latter were masked by optimally stimulating the most suppressive near-surround region, as in Figure 2e. Surround sizes did not vary significantly with retinal eccentricity or cortical layer. For each neuron, we calculated a "relative" surround extent as the ratio of surround field diameter (measured as in Fig. 2d) to the high-contrast SF diameter; the population average was 4.6 ± 0.7.

To summarize, in V1 at 2-8° eccentricity, surround field sizes were on average 4.6 (up to >13) times larger than high-contrast SF sizes and at least 10 (up to >27) times larger than the mean mrf size of V1 cells.

Several other recent studies have examined the spatial summation properties of macaque V1 neurons (Sceniak et al., 2001; Cavanaugh et al., 2002). In these studies, center and surround responses were modeled as independent, spatially overlapped excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms, each with a Gaussian spatial sensitivity profile and with the inhibitory mechanism being broader than the excitatory one (also see DeAngelis et al., 1994). Cavanaugh et al. (2002) found that a ratio of Gaussian model was the best fit to their data, whereas Sceniak et al. (2001) favored a difference of Gaussian (DOG) model. The spatial spread of the center and surround mechanisms in these studies was estimated directly, and in one study (Sceniak et al., 2001) exclusively, from the fitted curves. In the present study, we fit our spatial summation data to a DOG model and used the fits mainly to derive robust estimates of SF and surround field sizes. Because the parameters derived from the Gaussian sensitivity functions depend strongly on assumptions about the mechanisms underlying center-surround interactions that may not be valid, we chose to report empirical measurements of SF and surround sizes. However, because the DOG model is a good descriptor of our summation data, and to allow for comparison with previous studies, we also derived from the fitted curves the Gaussian spread (radius) of the excitatory and inhibitory components (Sceniak et al., 2001) (for details, see Levitt and Lund, 2002). The population means were 1.2° for the excitatory radius and 2.7° for the inhibitory radius, revealing a somewhat larger mean RF center mechanism than our empirical measurements of high-contrast SF size. The width of the surround inhibitory mechanism instead agreed well with our empirical measurements of surround size as described in Figure 2, d and e. These results are consistent with data from Sceniak et al. (2001), although our model parameters are somewhat larger than those reported by Cavanaugh et al. (2002).

Cortical extent and patterns of horizontal and feedback connections

CTB (n = 8) or BDA (n = 2) injections (uptake zone diameters, 0.27-1.2 mm) were made in physiologically characterized V1 loci at different cortical depths (n = 2 in layers 1-3, 5 in layers 1-4C, 1 in layers 1-5, and 2 in layers 1-6) between 2.5 and 7.5° eccentricity in the lower visual field representation. Consistent with previous results obtained with different anatomical tracers (Rockland and Lund, 1983; Yoshioka et al., 1996), CTB or BDA injections in macaque V1 layers 2/3 produced patches of terminal label surrounding the injected V1 column (Fig. 3). CTB additionally retrogradely labeled cell bodies (but not fibers) within each patch, indicating the reciprocal nature of these connections (Fig. 3, inset). Reciprocal lateral connections were also labeled in layers 4B/upper 4Calpha and 5/6, when the tracer injection involved these V1 laminas. Both tracers revealed different patterns of label in these layers: bar-shaped fields in 4B/upper 4Calpha (Asi et al., 1996; Angelucci et al., 2002) and a less patchy, more diffuse label in 5/6 (Rockland and Knutson, 2001). The labeled fields of lateral connections in all V1 layers were anisotropic in cortical space (Fig. 3). In layers 2/3, the longer axis of label (D(mm)) (Fig. 1b), known to extend orthogonal to the ocular dominance domains (Yoshioka et al., 1996), measured on average 6 ± 0.7 mm (extending up to 9 mm). The distance from the edge of the tracer uptake zone to the farthest labeled cell averaged 2.9 ± 0.4 mm. The most distant labeled cells were consistently located laterally to the injection site, i.e., toward the foveal representation of V1 (Fig. 3). Furthermore, the mean anisotropy ratio (extent of long/short axis) of CTB-labeled layer 2/3 lateral connection fields was 1.56 ± 0.1, closely matching the anisotropy ratio (1.6) of the V1 magnification factor in these layers due to the ocular dominance domains (Blasdel and Campbell, 2001). The latter two observations suggest that lateral connections follow the overall anisotropy of visual field representation in V1. CTB and BDA injections produced similar results. We found no statistically significant difference in the extent or anisotropy ratio between lateral connections in different V1 layers, despite a trend for connections to be more extensive and more anisotropic in the deeper layers. The extent and anisotropy ratio for lateral connections in different V1 laminas are reported in Table 1, top.



View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3.   Patchy lateral (or horizontal) connections in layers 2/3 of macaque area V1. A surface view 2D composite reconstruction of CTB-labeled connections is shown. The labeled field axes measured 9 × 6 mm. Black oval, CTB uptake zone; blank annulus, region of heavy label. Note anisotropic distribution of overall label. The foveal representation is toward the bottom (lateral V1); the V1-V2 border is to the right (anterior V1). Small square, Labeled patch shown at higher power in the inset. Scale bar, 500 µm (corrected for 30% shrinkage). Inset, High-power drawing of patch in the small square, showing labeled fibers and somata (dots), indicating reciprocity of connections. Scale bar, 100 µm.


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1.   Cortical extent and anisotropy of V1 lateral connections and of feedback connections to V1

The same V1 injections (n = 10) used to determine the extent of intra-areal V1 lateral connections labeled retrogradely the cells of origin of FB connections to V1 in extrastriate cortex (Fig. 4a). We confined our analysis to FB from areas V2, V3, and MT. Small (~300-µm-diameter) tracer injections confined to V1 layers 1-3 retrogradely labeled extensive fields of somata in the superficial (2/3A) and deeper (at the 5/6 border) layers of area V2; injections involving layers 1-4B or 1-6 additionally labeled cells in the upper and lower layers of areas V3 and MT. Within each extrastriate area, the retrograde label in the upper layers was less dense (Barone et al., 2000) and significantly (p < 0.01) less extensive than in layers 5/6 (Fig. 4b), and decreased in density and spatial extent with distance from V1, whereas the label in the lower layers increased in spatial extent (Table 1, middle). The density of labeled cells within the FB fields gradually declined with distance from a denser center core region. The retrograde label appeared clustered in the upper layers and showed fluctuations in cell density in the lower layers. Labeled FB fields in extrastriate cortex were anisotropic in cortical space (Fig. 4b; Table 1, middle), their long axis following the overall anisotropy of visual field representation of the cortical area. Thus, in V2, the longer axis of the label extended orthogonal to the CO bands, and in all areas was approximately parallel to the longer (i.e., elevation) axis of the cortical area itself. Extent and anisotropy ratios for retrogradely labeled FB connections in the upper and lower layers of extrastriate cortex are reported in Table 1, middle.



View larger version (118K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 4.   Cells of origin in area V3 of feedback connections to V1. a, Micrograph (left) of a sagittal section through dorsal V3 (shaded box on the right shows location of the photographed region on the annectant gyrus), showing CTB-labeled cell bodies (arrows) in layers 2/3A and 5/6. Cortical layers are indicated at the bottom; WM, White matter; arrowhead, labeled fibers in layers 4 and 3B (terminals of feedforward connections from V1). The composite surface map for this case is shown in b. The injection site involved V1 layers 1-4C and was made at 6.5° eccentricity in the lower visual field (same injection case as in Figs. 6a, 7a). D, Dorsal; P, posterior. Scale bar, 100 µm. b, Surface view plots of cell label density in the upper (left) and lower (right) layers of dorsal V3, generated using custom software written in Matlab. Color scale represents cell density (numbers are cells per 500 µm2). Bins containing <5% of peak cell density were removed from the image. Label anterior to the crown of the annectant gyrus (purple triangles in a, b) is in area V3A. Purple squares (in a, b), Location of the fundus of the lunate sulcus. The long axis of these feedback fields measured 7.8 mm in the upper layers and 9.8 mm in the lower layers. The visual field map of the lower-layer feedback field is shown in Figure 7a. M, Medial (away from the fovea); P, posterior (toward the V1-V2 border). Scale bar, 1 mm (corrected for 30 and 12% shrinkage in the anteroposterior and mediolateral axis, respectively).

Our V1 injections were either confined to the CO interblob columns (n = 2 injections through layers 1-3, and n = 1 injection through layers 1-4B) or involved both CO blob and interblob compartments (n = 7). Resulting retrograde FB label involved all V2 stripe compartments, even in cases in which the V1 injection was clearly confined to an interblob column. The anterograde label in V2 (terminals of feedforward axons from V1) arising from these same V1 injections in the interblob columns (n = 3) was more focused than the retrograde (FB) label and was either confined to the pale CO stripes (n = 1; V1 injection in layers 1-3) or involved both the thick and pale stripes (n = 2). There was no obvious difference in extent between FB fields in extrastriate cortex labeled by V1 injections involving CO blob or interblob columns.

We also determined the extent of the divergence region of FB connections to V1. This is the V1 region containing terminals of FB axons, anterogradely labeled by small tracer injections in extrastriate cortex. CTB or BDA injections (uptake zone diameter, 300-1500 µm) were made in physiologically characterized loci in areas V2 (n = 2 CTB and 1 BDA injections) or dorsal V3 (n = 4 CTB injections) (Fig. 5a) between 2.2 and 6.5° eccentricity in the lower visual field. To investigate the retinotopic organization of FB connections to V1, all the V2 injected cases (n = 3) received a second injection of a different tracer (BDA or CTB) in V1 at the same retinal eccentricity as the V2 injection. Upper-layer injections in V2 or V3 produced large fields of patchy terminal and cell body label in V1 layers 2/3 and 4B (Fig. 5b). Injections involving all V2 or V3 cortical laminas resulted in even larger labeled fields within V1 and additionally produced terminal and sparse cell body label at the layer 5/6 border of V1. The layer 5/6 label appeared less clearly patchy than in the layers above. Labeled patches in different V1 layers arising from the same extrastriate injection were vertically aligned. Anterograde and retrograde labels overlapped in the V1 patches, indicating the reciprocal nature of feedforward and feedback connections to and from V1. FB fields within V1 arising from tracer injections in V2 or V3 greatly exceeded the size of the intra-areal V1 fields produced by similarly sized V1 injections, the V3 injections labeling larger fields in V1 than the V2 injections (Table 1, bottom). The FB fields in V1 were anisotropic in cortical space (Fig. 5c), their longer axis extending parallel to the V1-V2 border when near that border; their mean anisotropy ratio was greater than that of V1 intra-areal lateral connections (Table 1,bottom).



View larger version (64K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 5.   Patchy terminal label of feedback connections in layer 4B of V1 arising from a tracer injection in area V3. a, Micrograph of a sagittal section through dorsal area V3, showing a CTB injection site involving all cortical layers (layer 1 is involved in the injection but not in this specific section). The injection was made at 6.4° eccentricity in the lower visual field. 1, Layer 1; WM, white matter; AG, annectant gyrus. Scale bar, 200 µm (corrected for 30% shrinkage). b, Micrograph showing a surface view of CTB-labeled terminals and cell bodies (arising from the injection site in a) in a single tissue section cut tangentially through V1 layer 4B. c, 2D composite serial tangential section reconstruction of anterograde (i.e., feedback) terminal label through the whole thickness of layer 4B. Arrowheads in b and c point to the same two patches. Note anisotropic distribution of overall label. The axes of the labeled field measured 13.8 × 8.1 mm. The visual field extent of this layer 4B-labeled field is represented as a gray oval in Figure 8b. Scale bar, 1 mm, for b and c (corrected for 30% shrinkage). Medial, Away from the fovea; Anterior: toward the V1-V2 border.

Our V2 injections (one confined to a pale CO stripe and two involving both thick and pale stripes) produced terminal and cell body labels in the interblob columns of V1 (consistent with results of Sincich and Horton, 2002). Terminal (FB) label in V1 arising from V3 injections was confined either to the CO blob or to the interblob columns; larger injections (~1.5 mm in diameter) labeled both V1 compartments. These observations suggest that, similarly to corticocortical projections between V1 and V2 (Sincich and Horton, 2002), the connections between V1 and V3 form two parallel, segregated pathways, one related to the CO blob columns of V1 and the other one related to the interblobs (Angelucci and Levitt, 2002). We observed no obvious difference in extent between FB fields terminating in different CO compartments of V1.

Visuotopic extent of horizontal and feedback connections

Cortical measurements of intrinsic V1 and inter-areal FB fields were converted into visual field coordinates and related to the spatial extent of the receptive and surround fields of V1 cells.

Here we use two visuotopic measures: (1) D° is the extent, in degrees of visual angle, of the axis of the connectional field, derived from the cortical retinotopic map (see Eqs. 1, 3) (Fig. 1a); its extent is independent of RF size; and (2) ARF is the cumulative RF size of all labeled neurons in a given labeled region; thus its extent is dependent on the method and stimulus contrast used to measure RF size (see Eq. 4) (Fig. 1a). The visuotopic extent (D°) of lateral connections is shown for a representative case in Figure 6a. D° of CTB-labeled layer 2/3 lateral connections (dashed gray oval) is shown centered onto three different estimates of the ARF size of the V1 injection (the three black ovals indicate aggregate mrf and aggregate high- and low-contrast SF, respectively). D° of V1 lateral connections in this case was 2.2-fold greater than the aggregate mrf of the connections cells of origin and closely matched the aggregate low-contrast SF size of the cells of origin. Across the population, the monosynaptic spread (D°) of V1 horizontal connections averaged 2.47 ± 0.3° in extent. V1 injection sites ranged in size between 0.2° and 0.8° (D°) or 0.5° and 1.3° (aggregate mrf). Because our interest lay in determining whether lateral connections extend beyond the limits of V1 cells RFs, we calculated a "relative" visuotopic extent for these connections as the ratio of the visuotopic extent of the connectional field (either D° or ARF size) to the ARF size of its cells of origin. Figure 6b shows population means of the relative visuotopic extent of V1 connectional fields across all cortical layers (n = 21 connectional fields). Mean population values for the different V1 layers are shown in Table 2. Ratios in Figure 6b and Table 2 are additionally shown for each of three different methods of measuring RF size (mrf and high- and low-contrast SF). On average, across the population, the monosynaptic spread (D°) of V1 lateral connections was approximately three times larger than the mrf and approximately two times larger than the high-contrast SF of their cells of origin but was commensurate with the low-contrast SF of the cells. Therefore, these connections could account monosynaptically for the apparent expansion of the SF at low contrast (Kapadia et al., 1999; Sceniak et al., 1999). However, because V1 neuron surround fields were on average approximately five (up to >13) times larger than the high-contrast SF of the neurons (see above), V1 horizontal connections are significantly less extensive than the mean surround size of V1 cells. Comparison of the mean visuotopic extent of these connections (2.47°) with the mean Gaussian spread (diameter) of the excitatory center (2.4°) and inhibitory surround (5.4°) mechanisms also revealed that the monosynaptic spread of horizontal connections is too small to account for mean surround size and is instead commensurate with the size of the RF center mechanism.



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 6.   Visuotopic extent of V1 lateral connections. a, Visual field map of a representative CTB injection site and resulting labeled lateral connections in V1 layers 2/3. The injection site was in the lower visual field representation of V1 at 6.5° eccentricity, 4° from the vertical meridian (VM). HM, Horizontal meridian. D° of the V1 connectional field (dashed gray oval, 3 × 3.5°) and ARF size of the V1 injection site (black ovals) were estimated as detailed in Materials and Methods. The black ovals represent ARF sizes computed using three different measures of RF size, each indicated by symbols as in Figure 2c (aggregate mrf, 1.3 × 1.6°; aggregate high-contrast SF, 1.9 × 2.2°; aggregate low-contrast SF, 3.4 × 3.7°). b, Histogram of the population means (n = 21) of the relative visuotopic extent of labeled V1 lateral connections along the isopolar (black bars) and isoeccentricity (hatched bars) axes of the labeled fields. Data from all layers are pooled together. The visuotopic extent is expressed as the ratio of D° of V1 connections to the ARF size of neurons at the V1 injection site and is shown for each of three different methods of measuring RF (and thus ARF) size (symbols on x-axis, as in Fig. 2c). The trend for ratios to be smaller along the isoeccentricity axis of the field was not statistically significant. Error bars indicate SEM. The dashed horizontal line marks a ratio of 1.


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2.   Visual field extent and anisotropy of V1 lateral connections

Despite being anisotropic in cortical space (Fig. 3; Table 1, top), V1 lateral connections covered isotropic regions of visual space (Fig. 6a; Table 2). The ratio of D° of the foveal half of the connections to D° of their peripheral half averaged 0.94 ± 0.5, indicating that visual space is represented symmetrically along the elevation axis of the connections. In addition, the mean anisotropy ratio of their visual field extent (ARF size along the long axis/ARF size along the short axis of the labeled field) approached 1. There was no statistically significant difference in anisotropy ratio across cortical layers, despite a tendency for connections to be more anisotropic in layers 5/6 (Table 2).

We then asked whether the dimensions of feedback connections from extrastriate cortex to V1 are commensurate with the scale of V1 neuron modulatory surround fields. Because the cells of origin of FB connections in extrastriate cortex and of lateral connections in V1 were labeled by the same V1 tracer injections (n = 10), we were able to directly compare the extent of the visual field region that these two different connectional systems convey to the same V1 column. Figure 7a shows an example of the visuotopic extent of retrogradely labeled fields of cells of origin of FB connections in layers 5/6 of extrastriate cortex. The visuotopic extent of V1 horizontal connections to the same injection site is also shown for comparison. The aggregate mrf sizes of the FB fields in V2, V3, and MT were 4.6-, 7.7-, and 21-fold larger, respectively, than the aggregate mrf size of neurons at the V1 injection sites. In comparison, the aggregate mrf sizes of V1 intra-areal lateral connections in layers 2/3 and 4B were only 2.7 and 3.7 times larger than the aggregate mrf size of the same V1 injection. Across the population, aggregate mrf sizes of retrogradely labeled FB fields in the lower layers of extrastriate cortex averaged 3.8 ± 0.6° (in V2), 6.7 ± 0.7° (in V3), and 26.6 ± 3° (in MT); those of V1 horizontal connections across all layers instead averaged 2.9 ± 0.4. Figure 7b shows population means of the relative visuotopic extent of retrogradely labeled FB fields in the lower layers of areas V2, V3, and MT and, for comparison, of V1 lateral connections. Relative visuotopic extent values are shown in Table 3 for each of two different methods of measuring RF size. These results indicate that the region of visual space conveyed by FB connections from extrastriate cortex to V1 is larger than that conveyed by horizontal connections to the same V1 column. Furthermore, such visual space region increases with cortical distance from V1, relating to the magnification factor and RF size of neurons in the extrastriate region giving rise to the FB projections. This was the case for both upper and lower layer FB fields, but within each extrastriate area, the lower layer fields were always more extensive than the upper layer fields (Table 3).



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 7.   Visuotopic extent of retrogradely labeled fields of cells of origin of FB connections in extrastriate cortex. a, Visual field map of FB fields of neurons in layers 5/6 of areas V2 (top left), V3 (middle right), and MT (top right) labeled by a CTB injection through V1 layers 1-4C at 6.5° eccentricity (same injection case as in Fig. 6a). Visual field maps of V1 lateral connections in layers 2/3 (bottom left) and 4B (bottom right) labeled by the same V1 injection are also shown. Gray circles, D° of the connectional fields. Black ovals, aggregate mrf size of neurons at the V1 injection site (1.3 × 1.6° in layers 2/3; 1.1 × 1.2° in layer 4B). Dashed black circles, mean mrf size of cells at the edge of labeled fields. The aggregate mrf size of each connectional field is the sum of the diameter of the gray circle plus the diameter of one dashed black circle. This was estimated as described in Materials and Methods and measured 3.5 × 4.1° (V1 layers 2/3 horizontal connections), 4.1 × 4.8° (V1 layer 4B horizontal connections), 6.1° (V2 FB), 8.7° (V3 FB), and 23.6° (MT FB). The aggregate mrf of retrogradely labeled neuronal FB fields in the upper layers of extrastriate cortex (data not shown) measured 5.4° (V2), 7.6° (V3), and 15.3° (MT). Scale bar, 2°. b, Histogram of the population means of the relative visuotopic extent of labeled layer 5/6 FB fields (black bars) in areas V2 (n = 6), V3 (n = 5), and MT (n = 2), arising from the same V1 tracer injections. The visuotopic extent is expressed as the ratio of the aggregate mrf size of the FB field along its long axis to the aggregate mrf size of neurons at the V1 injection site. White bar, Mean aggregate mrf ratio (3.3 ± 0.24) for V1 lateral connections (n = 21). Note cut on the y-axis scale.


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3.   Visual field extent of feedback neuron fields in extrastriate cortex

We then compared the scale of FB fields with the scale of physiologically measured surround field sizes of V1 neurons. Specifically, we compared the relative visuotopic extent of FB fields (Table 3) with the relative extent of surround fields of V1 neurons (see above). On average, depending on the cortical area of origin, FB connections from the lower layers of extrastriate cortex conveyed information to a V1 column from regions of visual space 5-25 (up to 29) times the aggregate mrf of the V1 column, and 6-27 (up to 32) times the aggregate high-contrast SF of the V1 injection (Table 3). Surround field sizes of V1 cells were on average 10 (up to >27) times larger than the mrf of the cells and 5 (up to >13) times larger than their high-contrast SF (see above). Thus, the spatial scale of FB connections from extrastriate cortex to V1 is commensurate with the full spatial range of empirically measured modulatory surround fields of single V1 cells. Similarly, comparison of the mean visuotopic extent of FB fields with the mean Gaussian spread (diameter) of the inhibitory surround mechanism (5.4°) revealed the mean visuotopic extent of FB from V3 (5.6° in layers 2/3 and 6.7° in layers 5/6) to be commensurate with the mean size of the RF surround mechanism, and FB from V2 (3.4° in layers 2/3 and 3.8° in layers 5/6) and MT (15.3° and 26.6° in the upper and lower layers) with shorter- and longer-range surround sizes, respectively.

Figure 8, a and b, shows the visuotopic extent of anterogradely labeled fields of terminals of FB connections within V1 arising from a BDA injection in V2 (Fig. 8a) or a CTB injection in V3 (Fig. 8b). The relative visuotopic extent (D° of FB field/aggregate mrf of neurons at the injection site) of the FB terminal field in layers 2/3 of V1 labeled by the V2 injection was 0.85 (Fig. 8a); those of the terminal FB fields in V1 layers 4B and 5/6 labeled by the V3 injection were 1.1 and 1, respectively. Across the population, the visuotopic extent (D°) of FB terminal fields in V1 labeled by V2 or V3 injections averaged 3.42 ± 1.2° (D° of the injection sites ranging between 0.3 and 2.7° and the aggregate mrf between 1.5 and 7.2°). Figure 8c and Table 4 show population means of the relative visuotopic extent (D° or aggregate mrf of FB field in V1/aggregate mrf of extrastriate injection site) of anterogradely labeled FB fields across all layers of V1. These results indicate that the aggregate mrf of FB terminal fields within V1 arising from V2 or V3 injections is commensurate with the aggregate mrf of FB neurons at the injected site; i.e., FB connections link equal regions of visual field in striate and extrastriate cortices. Injections in overlapping retinotopic locations in V1 and V2 further emphasized the orderly topographic organization of these connections, demonstrating that FB neurons project symmetrically to V1 around a central point at the same retinotopic location as the injected V2 column (Fig. 8a, bottom). Unlike V1 intra-areal lateral connections, FB connectional fields in V1 were anisotropic in visual space (Fig. 8a, top, b; Table 4).