May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Peripheral Contrast Adaptation in Subthreshold Responses of Mammalian Y–Type Retinal Ganglion Cells
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J.B. Demb
    Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences and MCD Biology, Neuroscience,
  • K.A. Zaghloul
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences and MCD Biology, Neuroscience,
    Univ of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
  • M. Manookin
    Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
    Neuroscience Program, Bionengineering,
  • K. Boahen
    Neuroscience Program, Bionengineering,
    Univ of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J.B. Demb, None; K.A. Zaghloul, None; M. Manookin, None; K. Boahen, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grants EY14454, EY07003, EY07035; RPB; Sloan Foundation; Packard Foundation
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 2313. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J.B. Demb, K.A. Zaghloul, M. Manookin, K. Boahen; Peripheral Contrast Adaptation in Subthreshold Responses of Mammalian Y–Type Retinal Ganglion Cells . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):2313.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : In retinal ganglion cells, contrast presented over the receptive field periphery suppresses the spiking response to a stimulus over the receptive field center. Here, we measured the effect of peripheral contrast on the ganglion cell’s subthreshold membrane potential and tested whether the effect of peripheral contrast could be explained by an increased conductance in the ganglion cell, reflecting postsynaptic inhibition.

Methods: : We made intracellular or whole–cell recordings of Y–type ganglion cells in the in vitro guinea pig retina (n = 22 cells). A cell was stimulated with a white–noise modulation of a central spot (0.5 mm diameter). In alternate 10–second periods, the receptive field periphery (1.0 mm inner diameter; 3.0–3.7 mm outer diameter) contained a 0% or 100% contrast drifting grating (2–Hz drift; 4.3 or 5.0 cyc/mm, square–wave). We quantified the impact of peripheral contrast on the subthreshold response to the central spot using a linear–nonlinear analysis. We measured the conductance change during the peripheral grating using current pulses or voltage steps.

Results: : Peripheral contrast suppressed the response to the central stimulus by two mechanisms: a reduced gain of the subthreshold response (OFF cells: 30.3 +/– 0.03%, n = 16; ON cells: 13.8 +/– 0.04%, n = 6) (mean +/– sem) and a tonic membrane hyperpolarization (OFF cells: –1.5 +/– 0.2 mV; ON cells: –0.06 +/– 0.40mV). Initially (50–200 msec), the peripheral grating increased membrane conductance over baseline by 15.6 +/– 5.7%. Afterwards, the grating increased conductance over baseline by 6.9 +/– 2.1% (n = 2 ON cells, 9 OFF cells). In the same eleven cells, the grating reduced the gain of the subthreshold response by 34.8 +/– 3.0%.

Conclusions: : During a sustained presentation of contrast to the peripheral receptive field, a ganglion cell increased its membrane conductance by ∼7%. This increase could explain only a minor portion of the ∼35% reduction in response gain to a central stimulus. Thus, peripheral contrast does not act largely by causing a postsynaptic inhibition of the ganglion cell. It is likely that peripheral contrast acts by inhibiting the ganglion cell’s presynaptic bipolar terminals.

Keywords: retinal connections, networks, circuitry • ganglion cells • amacrine cells 
×
×

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.

×