Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol 67, Issue 2 430-442, Copyright © 1992 by APS

ARTICLES

Response dynamics and receptive-field organization of catfish amacrine cells

H. M. Sakai and K. Naka
Department of Ophthalmology, New York University Medical Center, New York 10016.

1. We have applied Wiener analysis to a study of response dynamics of N (sustained) and C (transient) amacrine cells. Stimuli were a spot and an annulus of light, the luminance of which was modulated by two independent white-noise signals. First- and second-order Wiener kernels were computed for each spot and annulus input. The analysis allowed us to separate a modulation response into its linear and nonlinear components, and into responses generated by a receptive-field center and its surround. 2. Organization of the receptive field of N amacrine cells consists of both linear and nonlinear components. The receptive field of linear components was center-surround concentric and opposite in polarity, whereas that of second-order nonlinear components was monotonic. 3. In NA (center-depolarizing) amacrine cells, the membrane DC potentials brought about by the mean luminance of a white-noise spot or a steady spot were depolarizations, whereas those brought about by the mean luminance of a white-noise annulus or a steady annulus were hyperpolarizations. In NB (center-hyperpolarizing) amacrine cells, this relationship was reversed. If both receptive-field center and surround were stimulated by a spot and annulus, membrane DC potentials became close to the dark level and the amplitude of modulation responses became larger. 4. The linear responses of a receptive-field center of an N amacrine cell, measured in terms of the first-order Wiener kernel, were facilitated if the surround was stimulated simultaneously. The amplitude of the kernel became larger, and its peak response time became shorter. The same facilitation occurred in the linear responses of a receptive-field surround if the center was stimulated simultaneously. 5. The second-order nonlinear responses were not usually generated in N amacrine cells if the stimulus was either a white-noise spot or a white-noise annulus alone. Significant second-order nonlinearity appeared if the other region of the receptive field was also stimulated. 6. Membrane DC potentials of C amacrine cells remained at the dark level with either a white-noise spot or a white-noise annulus. The cell responded only to modulations. 7. The major characteristics of center and surround responses of C amacrine cells could be approximated by second-order Wiener kernels of the same structure. The receptive field of second-order nonlinear components of C amacrine cells was monotonic.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Petit-Jacques, B. Volgyi, B. Rudy, and S. Bloomfield Spontaneous Oscillatory Activity of Starburst Amacrine Cells in the Mouse Retina J Neurophysiol, September 1, 2005; 94(3): 1770 - 1780. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Burkhardt and P. K. Fahey Contrast Rectification and Distributed Encoding By ON-OFF Amacrine Cells in the Retina J Neurophysiol, October 1, 1999; 82(4): 1676 - 1688. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. M. Sakai, H. Machuca, and K.-I. Naka Processing of Color- and Noncolor-Coded Signals in the Gourami Retina. I. Horizontal Cells J Neurophysiol, October 1, 1997; 78(4): 2002 - 2017. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. M. Sakai, H. Machuca, and K.-I. Naka Processing of Color- and Noncolor-Coded Signals in the Gourami Retina. II. Amacrine Cells J Neurophysiol, October 1, 1997; 78(4): 2018 - 2033. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]