Optogenetic suppression of corticogeniculate feedback in anesthetized ferrets is overridden by visual stimulation
Zhu, S.; Hasse, J. M.; Briggs, F.
Show abstract
The feedforward projection from the retina shapes the spatial receptive field properties of neurons in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus (LGN). Corticogeniculate feedback from the visual cortex appears to exert a more subtle, modulatory influence on LGN responses. Studies involving manipulations of corticogeniculate feedback have yielded inconsistent findings, but the reasons for these inconsistencies are not known. To examine the functional contributions of corticogeniculate feedback, and to resolve past inconsistencies, we examined the effects of selective optogenetic suppression of corticogeniculate neurons in anesthetized ferrets. In particular, we examined the responses of LGN and V1 neurons during optogenetic suppression of corticogeniculate feedback in the presence and absence of visual stimulation and across conditions in which the frequency of LED illumination varied. Optogenetic suppression of corticogeniculate feedback decreased activity among LGN neurons in the absence of visual stimulation, dispelling the notion that anesthesia causes a floor effect. In contrast, suppressing corticogeniculate feedback did not affect the visual responses of LGN neurons, suggesting that feedforward visual stimulus drive overrides weak corticogeniculate influence. Optogenetic effects on LGN and V1 neuronal responses depended on the frequency of LED illumination, with higher frequency illumination inducing slow oscillations in V1, dis-inhibiting V1 neurons locally, and producing more suppression among LGN neurons. These results demonstrate that corticogeniculate influence depends on stimulation parameters including visual stimulus conditions and frequency of inactivation. Furthermore, weak corticogeniculate influence is overridden by strong feedforward visual stimulus drive - this attribute is the most likely source of inconsistencies in past studies. Significance StatementAlthough corticogeniculate synapses onto thalamic neurons far outnumber those coming from the retina, the function of corticogeniculate feedback in vision has remained a stubborn puzzle. Prior studies of corticogeniculate feedback have yielded inconsistent findings, but the source for these inconsistencies is unknown. We utilized selective optogenetic suppression of corticogeniculate feedback to examine its effects on thalamic neuronal responses and to resolve sources of prior inconsistencies. We found that suppression of corticogeniculate feedback reduced thalamic responses, but only in the absence of visual input. This suggests that the major source of inconsistencies across prior studies is the fact that weak corticogeniculate influence is overcome by strong feedforward visual stimulus drive.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Experience dependence of alpha rhythms and neural dynamics in mouse visual cortex 95%
- The effect of microsaccades in the primary visual cortex: a two-phase modulation in the absence of visual stimulation 95%
- On the functional role of gamma synchronization in the retinogeniculate system of the cat 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Visual feature tuning of superior colliculus neural reafferent responses after fixational microsaccades 96%
- Chilean brush tailed mouse (Octodon degus): a diurnal precocial rodent as a new model to study visual receptive field properties of superior colliculus neurons 96%
- Visually-evoked activity and variable modulation of auditory responses in the macaque inferior colliculus 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Smooth Pursuit Inhibition Reveals Audiovisual Enhancement of Fast Movement Control 92%
- Continuous psychophysics shows millisecond-scale visual processing delays are faithfully preserved in movement dynamics 92%
- Local variations in L/M ratio influence the detection and color naming of small spots 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.