We were able to hold one of the opponent cells for long enough to explore the spatial aspects of its receptive field (
Figure 5). The left-most column of
Figure 5 shows the results for the color opponent cell, whereas the middle and the right columns show two examples of spectrally nonopponent cells from the same animal. The middle column shows an on-cell and the right column an off-cell. Clearly, both spectrally nonopponent cells are spatially opponent. In
Figure 5A, two repeats of the same center-surround stimulus are superimposed to give an indication of the reliability of the recordings for all three cells. For the color opponent cell (right column), the responses to both the center and the surround stimulus show clearly the same M-on/S-off pattern as previously found with the full-field stimulus (
Figure 2). This strongly suggests that the cell is not spatially opponent. In contrast, both spectrally nonopponent cells show a reversal of response polarity from the center to the surround, indicating spatial opponency (
Figure 5A, middle right). To ensure that for the color opponent cell we had not missed the surround altogether, we examined the kernels derived from a pseudo-random spatio-temporal checkerboard stimulus (
Figure 5B, left). Each kernel is plotted in the center of its respective check. The three rings plotted over the checkerboard delineate the boundaries of the center (central ring) and surround stimuli (middle and outer ring) of
Figure 5A. The center check of the spatio-temporal stimulus covers approximately the same area as the disk of the center-surround stimulus. Its first order kernel shows the clear biphasic profile we would expect if we added the blue and green first-order kernels together (solid line,
Figure 5C, left). Moreover, the sum of the kernels for the surrounding region (medium grey,
Figure 5B) shows a very similar time course (dotted line,
Figure 5C) indicating that this cell was not spatially opponent. Further out, the responses become very weak and the sum of all first-order kernels becomes very noisy, but the sign of the response does not reverse (dashed line,
Figure 5C, left). This indicates that our center-surround stimulus did indeed cover the entire receptive field of the cell. In contrast, the two spectrally nonopponent cells show a clear reversal of the polarity of the response from the central to more peripheral checks (
Figure 5B and 5C, middle right). In both cells, the surround response is slightly delayed, which leads to the biphasic response for the medium grey area, where both the center and the surround contribute. In fact, we were able to perform the necessary experiments to determine whether a cell is spatially opponent in a total of 12 cells. In only one of these cells, the color opponent cell shown in
Figure 5, we did not find clear evidence for opponency. The remaining 11 cells, all spectrally nonopponent, showed clear signs of spatial opponency.