June 2006
Volume 6, Issue 6
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2006
A fresh look at receptive-field size and illusory contour detection
Author Affiliations
  • Margaret Livingstone
    Neurobiology Dept., Harvard Medical School, 220 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA 02115
  • Arash Yazdanbakhsh
    Neurobiology Dept., Harvard Medical School, 220 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA 02115
Journal of Vision June 2006, Vol.6, 686. doi:10.1167/6.6.686
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Margaret Livingstone, Arash Yazdanbakhsh; A fresh look at receptive-field size and illusory contour detection. Journal of Vision 2006;6(6):686. doi: 10.1167/6.6.686.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

V2 but not V1 cells respond to illusory contours defined by inducers outside the cell's classical receptive field (von der Heydt 1984). Thus the “classical” rf (the region giving an audible response to a stimulus) must not comprise all the parts of the visual field that can contribute to the activation of a cell.

We studied 43 cells in V2 and 41 cells in V1. For each cell we first mapped the receptive field using an optimal moving bar stimulus and listening to the response; we will call this the “audible rf”. Second we re-mapped the receptive field using sparse noise, and defined the “noise-based rf” as those regions where the visually-driven spike rate was significantly above the spontaneous firing rate (p < 0.05). In V1 the two ways of measuring the rf gave comparable rf sizes, but in V2 the noise-based rf was invariably larger than the audible rf.

We then tested whether cells responded to illusory contours when:

  1. The inducers were outside the audible rf but inside the noise-based rf

  2. The inducers were outside the noise-based rf

Only in #1 did the cells respond to illusory contours; there was no significant response in # 2.

Thus regions outside the classical rf that can drive illusory-contour responseiveness are not qualitatively different from the classical rf, but are merely less effective in driving the cell, and therefore undetectable by ear. Non-linear response summation to collinear stimuli could then explain the responsiveness of V2 cells to illusory contours.

Livingstone, M. Yazdanbakhsh, A. (2006). A fresh look at receptive-field size and illusory contour detection [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 6(6):686, 686a, http://journalofvision.org/6/6/686/, doi:10.1167/6.6.686. [CrossRef]
Footnotes
 Supported by NIH (EY13135)
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×