Table 1.

Experimental design differences between the current study and previous studies

StudySpeciesAnestheticInactivation methodPathwayStimulusCRF-only stimulationCRF + surround stimulation
% affected% less activitya% more activitya% affected% less activitya% more activitya
This studyMacaqueNoneCoolingV2/V3 → V1Sinusoidal grating32% (21 of 66)48% (10 of 21)52% (11 of 21)67% (44 of 66)11% (5 of 44)89% (39 of 44)
Sandell and Schiller (1982)SaimiriN20 + halothane thiopentalCoolingV2 → V1Single bar32%b (21 of 66)86%b (18 of 21)14%b (3 of 21)Not tested
Hupé et al. (2001a)MacaqueN20 + sufentanilGABAV2 → V1Array of bars10% (6 of 61)100% (6 of 6)0% (0 of 6)No effect on surround modulation Specific breakdown not reported
Hupé et al. (1998)MacaqueN20 + sufentanilCoolingMT → V1/V2/V3Array of bars40% (61 of 154)84% (51 of 61)16% (10 of 61)Population response increasec Specific breakdown not reported
Wang et al. (2010)CatN20 + halothaneCoolingPTV → V1Sinusoidal grating39% (16 of 41)81% (13 of 16)19% (3 of 16)76%b (31 of 41)81%b (25 of 31)19%b (6 of 31)
  • a“Less” and “more” indicate changes in V1 response during inactivation of feedback.

  • bValues were not tested for statistical significance.

  • cObserved for V3 and low-contrast stimuli only.