Principles underlying sensory map topography in primary visual cortex

Abstract

The primary visual cortex contains a detailed map of the visual scene, which is represented according to multiple stimulus dimensions including spatial location, ocular dominance and stimulus orientation. The maps for spatial location and ocular dominance arise from the spatial arrangement of thalamic afferent axons in the cortex. However, the origins of the other maps remain unclear. Here we show that the cortical maps for orientation, direction and retinal disparity in the cat (Felis catus) are all strongly related to the organization of the map for spatial location of light (ON) and dark (OFF) stimuli, an organization that we show is OFF-dominated, OFF-centric and runs orthogonal to ocular dominance columns. Because this ON–OFF organization originates from the clustering of ON and OFF thalamic afferents in the visual cortex, we conclude that all main features of visual cortical topography, including orientation, direction and retinal disparity, follow a common organizing principle that arranges thalamic axons with similar retinotopy and ON–OFF polarity in neighbouring cortical regions.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Recording from the horizontal dimension of visual cortex.
Figure 2: Topographic organization of ON and OFF cortical domains.
Figure 3: Cortical topographic relationships between ON–OFF, retinotopy and orientation preference.
Figure 4: Changes in retinotopy explain changes in orientation and direction preference throughout the cortex.
Figure 5: Principles underlying sensory map topography in primary visual cortex.

References

  1. 1

    Blasdel, G. G. & Salama, G. Voltage-sensitive dyes reveal a modular organization in monkey striate cortex. Nature 321, 579–585 (1986)

  2. 2

    Bonhoeffer, T. & Grinvald, A. Iso-orientation domains in cat visual cortex are arranged in pinwheel-like patterns. Nature 353, 429–431 (1991)

  3. 3

    Ohki, K. et al. Highly ordered arrangement of single neurons in orientation pinwheels. Nature 442, 925–928 (2006)

  4. 4

    Kaschube, M. et al. Universality in the evolution of orientation columns in the visual cortex. Science 330, 1113–1116 (2010)

  5. 5

    Nauhaus, I. & Nielsen, K. J. Building maps from maps in primary visual cortex. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 24, 1–6 (2014)

  6. 6

    Levy, M., Lu, Z., Dion, G. & Kara, P. The shape of dendritic arbors in different functional domains of the cortical orientation map. J. Neurosci. 34, 3231–3236 (2014)

  7. 7

    Cossell, L. et al. Functional organization of excitatory synaptic strength in primary visual cortex. Nature 518, 399–403 (2015)

  8. 8

    Miller, K. D. A model for the development of simple cell receptive fields and the ordered arrangement of orientation columns through activity-dependent competition between ON- and OFF-center inputs. J. Neurosci. 14, 409–441 (1994)

  9. 9

    Jin, J., Wang, Y., Swadlow, H. A. & Alonso, J. M. Population receptive fields of ON and OFF thalamic inputs to an orientation column in visual cortex. Nature Neurosci. 14, 232–238 (2011)

  10. 10

    Wang, Y. et al. Columnar organization of spatial phase in visual cortex. Nature Neurosci. 18, 97–103 (2015)

  11. 11

    Chapman, B. & Godecke, I. Cortical cell orientation selectivity fails to develop in the absence of ON-center retinal ganglion cell activity. J. Neurosci. 20, 1922–1930 (2000)

  12. 12

    Chapman, B., Zahs, K. R. & Stryker, M. P. Relation of cortical cell orientation selectivity to alignment of receptive fields of the geniculocortical afferents that arborize within a single orientation column in ferret visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 11, 1347–1358 (1991)

  13. 13

    Paik, S. B. & Ringach, D. L. Retinal origin of orientation maps in visual cortex. Nature Neurosci. 14, 919–925 (2011)

  14. 14

    Hubel, D. H. & Wiesel, T. N. Ferrier lecture. Functional architecture of macaque monkey visual cortex. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 198, 1–59 (1977)

  15. 15

    Jin, J. Z. et al. On and off domains of geniculate afferents in cat primary visual cortex. Nature Neurosci. 11, 88–94 (2008)

  16. 16

    Zahs, K. R. & Stryker, M. P. Segregation of ON and OFF afferents to ferret visual cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 59, 1410–1429 (1988)

  17. 17

    McConnell, S. K. & LeVay, S. Segregation of on- and off-center afferents in mink visual cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81, 1590–1593 (1984)

  18. 18

    Norton, T. T., Rager, G. & Kretz, R. ON and OFF regions in layer IV of striate cortex. Brain Res. 327, 319–323 (1985)

  19. 19

    Kaschube, M. et al. The pattern of ocular dominance columns in cat primary visual cortex: intra- and interindividual variability of column spacing and its dependence on genetic background. Eur. J. Neurosci. 18, 3251–3266 (2003)

  20. 20

    Kremkow, J. et al. Asymmetries in ON and OFF cortical retinotopy: are OFF receptive fields the anchors of cortical retinotopic maps? Soc. Neurosci. abstr. 639.09 (2013)

  21. 21

    Lee, K.-S., Huang, X. & Fitzpatrick, D. Specificity in the spatial organization of receptive fields supporting multiple functional maps in tree shrew visual cortex Soc. Neurosci. abstr. 232.13 (2015)

  22. 22

    Sarnaik, R., Wang, B. S. & Cang, J. Experience-dependent and independent binocular correspondence of receptive field subregions in mouse visual cortex. Cereb. Cortex 24, 1658–1670 (2014)

  23. 23

    Kara, P. & Boyd, J. D. A micro-architecture for binocular disparity and ocular dominance in visual cortex. Nature 458, 627–631 (2009)

  24. 24

    Sharma, J., Angelucci, A. & Sur, M. Induction of visual orientation modules in auditory cortex. Nature 404, 841–847 (2000)

  25. 25

    Humphrey, A. L., Sur, M., Uhlrich, D. J. & Sherman, S. M. Projection patterns of individual X- and Y-cell axons from the lateral geniculate nucleus to cortical area 17 in the cat. J. Comp. Neurol. 233, 159–189 (1985)

  26. 26

    Reid, R. C., Soodak, R. E. & Shapley, R. M. Linear mechanisms of directional selectivity in simple cells of cat striate cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 84, 8740–8744 (1987)

  27. 27

    Jagadeesh, B., Wheat, H. S. & Ferster, D. Linearity of summation of synaptic potentials underlying direction selectivity in simple cells of the cat visual cortex. Science 262, 1901–1904 (1993)

  28. 28

    Tolhurst, D. J. & Dean, A. F. Evaluation of a linear model of directional selectivity in simple cells of the cat's striate cortex. Vis. Neurosci. 6, 421–428 (1991)

  29. 29

    Albrecht, D. G. & Geisler, W. S. Motion selectivity and the contrast-response function of simple cells in the visual cortex. Vis. Neurosci. 7, 531–546 (1991)

  30. 30

    McLean, J., Raab, S. & Palmer, L. A. Contribution of linear mechanisms to the specification of local motion by simple cells in areas 17 and 18 of the cat. Vis. Neurosci. 11, 271–294 (1994)

  31. 31

    Livingstone, M. S. Mechanisms of direction selectivity in macaque V1. Neuron 20, 509–526 (1998)

  32. 32

    Smith, G. B., Whitney, D. E. & Fitzpatrick, D. Modular representation of luminance polarity in the superficial layers of primary visual cortex. Neuron 88, 805–818 (2015)

  33. 33

    Blasdel, G. G. Orientation selectivity, preference, and continuity in monkey striate cortex. J. Neurosci. 12, 3139–3161 (1992)

  34. 34

    Albus, K. & Wolf, W. Early post-natal development of neuronal function in the kitten’s visual cortex: a laminar analysis. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 348, 153–185 (1984)

  35. 35

    Swindale, N. V., Shoham, D., Grinvald, A., Bonhoeffer, T. & Hubener, M. Visual cortex maps are optimized for uniform coverage. Nature Neurosci. 3, 822–826 (2000)

  36. 36

    Woolsey, T. A. & Van der Loos, H. The structural organization of layer IV in the somatosensory region (SI) of mouse cerebral cortex. The description of a cortical field composed of discrete cytoarchitectonic units. Brain Res. 17, 205–242 (1970)

  37. 37

    Friedman, R. M., Chen, L. M. & Roe, A. W. Modality maps within primate somatosensory cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 12724–12729 (2004)

  38. 38

    Miller, L. M., Escabi, M. A., Read, H. L. & Schreiner, C. E. Functional convergence of response properties in the auditory thalamocortical system. Neuron 32, 151–160 (2001)

  39. 39

    Hafting, T., Fyhn, M., Molden, S., Moser, M. B. & Moser, E. I. Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex. Nature 436, 801–806 (2005)

  40. 40

    Peyrache, A., Lacroix, M. M., Petersen, P. C. & Buzsaki, G. Internally organized mechanisms of the head direction sense. Nature Neurosci. 18, 569–575 (2015)

  41. 41

    Martinez, L. M. et al. Receptive field structure varies with layer in the primary visual cortex. Nature Neurosci. 8, 372–379 (2005)

  42. 42

    Brainard, D. H. The psychophysics toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10, 433–436 (1997)

  43. 43

    Swindale, N. V., Grinvald, A. & Shmuel, A. The spatial pattern of response magnitude and selectivity for orientation and direction in cat visual cortex. Cereb. Cortex 13, 225–238 (2003)

  44. 44

    Lashgari, R. et al. Response properties of local field potentials and neighboring single neurons in awake primary visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 32, 11396–11413, (2012)

  45. 45

    DeAngelis, G. C., Ghose, G. M., Ohzawa, I. & Freeman, R. D. Functional micro-organization of primary visual cortex: receptive field analysis of nearby neurons. J. Neurosci. 19, 4046–4064 (1999)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Lashgari, S. Komban, M. Jansen, C. Pons and E. Koch for helping collect data in some experiments; H. Swadlow, Q. Zaidi and R. Mazade for comments on the manuscript; and A. Movshon for lending some experimental equipment. This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (EY005253, J.M.A.), a DFG Research Fellowship (KR 4062/1-1, J.K.) and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in the framework of the Excellence Initiative of the BMBF and DFG (J.K.).

Author information

J.K., J.J., Y.W. and J.M.A. conducted the experiments and data analysis. J.K., J.J. and J.M.A. wrote the manuscript.

Correspondence to Jose M. Alonso.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Measurements of ON–OFF responses and ocular dominance columns.

a, ON and OFF receptive fields were mapped with light (ON) and dark (OFF) sparse noise and calculated from the response to the stimulus onset (grey shaded area). b, Horizontal penetrations that ran for more than 1.2 mm through a monocular band were assumed to be nearly parallel to ocular dominance columns (top) and those that alternated between monocular responses for left and right eyes were assumed to be nearly orthogonal to ocular dominance columns (bottom). Receptive fields normalized for ocular dominance. Icons on the left illustrate ocular dominance columns for contralateral (C) and ipsilateral (I) eyes (arrow illustrates horizontal penetration). Each receptive field box has a side of 27°.

Extended Data Figure 2 ON–OFF domains are matched across eyes.

a, Integrating the ON–OFF receptive fields over 0.7 mm of horizontal cortical distance reveals ON and OFF receptive field subregions that are segregated in visual space and well matched between eyes. Notice the excellent binocular match of the receptive field subregions measured with light spots (left, two subregions displaced vertically in both eyes), and dark spots (middle left, one central subregion in both eyes). The ON–OFF receptive field difference also shows an excellent binocular match (middle right), so the ON–OFF segregation can still be seen after combining the receptive fields of the two eyes (right). b, Integrating the ON–OFF receptive fields over a much longer distance (1.6 mm of cortex, different horizontal penetration) still reveals separate receptive field subregions with excellent binocular match. The 1.6-mm-average receptive fields of the left and right eyes have both two ON subregions that are displaced diagonally and retinotopically matched (left). They also have two OFF subregions that are also displaced diagonally and retinotopically matched between the two eyes (middle left). A hint of the ON subregions can still be seen in the ON–OFF receptive field difference (middle right) and receptive field of both eyes combined (right), even if the receptive fields were averaged over 1.6 mm of cortex. Each square box framing a receptive field has a side of 16.2°.

Extended Data Figure 3 The OFF pathway might also anchor retinotopy in the primary visual cortex of the macaque.

ON–OFF retinotopy measured along 0.3 mm of horizontal cortical distance in macaque primary visual cortex (n = 1 monkey). As in the cat, changes in OFF retinotopy are more restricted than changes in ON retinotopy in the receptive fields of both eyes. Panels labelled ‘average’ show receptive fields averaged across cortical distance separately for each eye and both eyes. Plots labelled ‘retinotopy’ show the retinotopy of the receptive field pixel that generated the strongest ON (red) or OFF (blue) response, shown separately for each eye and both eyes. Each square box framing a receptive field has a side of 12°.

Extended Data Figure 4 Periodic changes in orientation preference.

a, Colour map showing normalized frequency of orientation difference between paired recordings measured at different cortical distances within a single horizontal penetration (same as Fig. 3k left). b, Difference in orientation preference between all possible paired recordings measured within the same horizontal penetration as in a (n = 496 paired comparisons, n = 1 animal). c, Same as a but for multiple recording sites obtained from multiple penetrations (n = 20,672 paired comparisons, n = 36 animals).

Extended Data Figure 5 Additional examples of horizontal recordings showing a correlation between changes in ON–OFF retinotopy and orientation preference.

a, Horizontal recording through 0.9 mm of cortex. From top to bottom, the first three panel rows show series of OFF, ON and ON–OFF receptive fields (left) and receptive fields averaged across horizontal cortical distance (right). The bottom row shows the orientation or direction tuning (left) and the retinotopy (Retinot.) of the strongest response within each receptive field (right; ON, red; OFF, blue). The small circles in the orientation plots illustrate the preferred orientation predicted from the ON–OFF receptive field. b, c, Horizontal recordings through binocular regions of length 0.5 mm (b) and 0.7 mm (c). Notice the accurate binocular match in ON–OFF retinotopy between the two eyes and also the striking binocular similarity in orientation preference, direction preference and orientation and direction selectivity. Each receptive field box has a side of 27° (a), 23° (b) or 23.6° (c).

Extended Data Figure 6 Example of a horizontal penetration in which we recorded from several single neurons separated from each other by 0.1 mm.

Format is similar to Fig. 4a and Extended Data Fig. 5a. The only difference is that the receptive fields and orientation plots were obtained from single neurons instead of multiunit activity. The last row shows spike waveforms from each single neuron (average and s.d.). Each square box framing a receptive field has a side of 23°.

Extended Data Figure 7 Example of a cortical region in which OFF retinotopy rotates around ON retinotopy.

The figure shows a series of receptive fields mapped with dark (OFF) and light stimuli (ON) and the ON–OFF receptive field difference. The last receptive field on the right for each row shows the average of all receptive fields across 0.8 mm of cortical distance. The plot on the right shows the retinotopy of the ON (red) and OFF (blue) receptive fields. Cortical regions where OFF retinotopy rotated around ON retinotopy were more difficult to find than regions where ON retinotopy rotated around OFF retinotopy. To estimate the relative frequency of ON and OFF retinotopy rotations, we measured the distance between the retinotopic centre of mass of single horizontal penetrations for each ON or OFF receptive field (81 penetrations with receptive field measurements from at least five recording sites per penetration). We then calculated a ratio of the average distances, as (ON − OFF)/(ON + OFF), and used a ratio of 0.5 as an arbitrary threshold to classify a penetration as OFF-anchored (ON rotates around OFF) or ON-anchored (OFF rotates around ON). Based on this criterion, there were 3.75 more OFF-anchored than ON-anchored penetrations (15 versus 4 penetrations, respectively; n = 17 animals). Each square box framing a receptive field has a side of 19.4°.

PowerPoint slides

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kremkow, J., Jin, J., Wang, Y. et al. Principles underlying sensory map topography in primary visual cortex. Nature 533, 52–57 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17936

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.