| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
REVIEW
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Submitted 20 July 2004; accepted in final form 7 September 2004
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this review is to critically examine phosphene induction and saccadic eye movement generation by electrical microstimulation of striate cortex (area V1) in humans and monkeys. The following issues are addressed: 1) Properties of electrical stimulation as they pertain to the activation of V1 elements; 2) the induction of phosphenes in sighted and blind human subjects elicited by electrical stimulation using various stimulation parameters and electrode types; 3) the induction of phosphenes with electrical microstimulation of V1 in monkeys; 4) the generation of saccadic eye movements with electrical microstimulation of V1 in monkeys; and 5) the tasks involved for the development of a cortical visual prosthesis for the blind. In this review it is concluded that electrical microstimulation of area V1 in trained monkeys can be used to accelerate the development of an effective prosthetic device for the blind.
INTRODUCTION
As early as 1931, Foerster discovered that electrical stimulation delivered to striate cortex (V1) of humans elicits a visual percept of light in the lower part of the visual field when stimulation is delivered above the calcarine fissure, and elicits a visual percept of light in the upper part of the visual field when stimulation is delivered below the calcarine fissure. Years later, using an array of implanted electrodes, Brindley and Lewin (1968a)
reported that electrical stimulation delivered to V1 of a blind patient evokes a phosphene, a percept depicted as a distant star that is stationary as long as the eyes are immobile. Such phosphenes have been evoked from patients blind for years and in some cases blind for decades (Brindley 1972; Brindley and Lewin 1968a, b; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996). Typically, a phosphene has been described as a circular spot of white light (but sometimes black) varying in size 
3° of visual angle and persisting for the duration of stimulation (Brindley 1972; Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Dobelle et al. 1974; Lee et al. 2000; Schmidt et al. 1996). As stimulation is delivered to portions of V1 representing a more peripheral part of the visual field, the size of a phosphene increases (Brindley and Lewin 1968a). Phosphenes exhibiting colors of red, green, or blue have also been evoked (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996). Phosphenes can be induced in both sighted and blind subjects (Brindley 1972; Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Dobelle et al. 1974; Lee et al. 2000; Maynard 2001; Schmidt et al. 1996).
For the most part, the above results concur with the receptive field properties of V1 cells of nonhuman primates (Dagnelie et al. 1989; Daniel and Whitterridge 1961; Dow et al. 1981; Gawne and Martin 2002; Hubel and Wiesel 1968, 1974b, 1977; Livingston and Hubel 1984; Michael 1981; Schiller 1976a; van Essen et al. 1984): that is, that the receptive field of V1 neurons is roughly circular and stationary (when the eyes are immobile), that the size of a field increases for more peripheral representations of the visual field, and that the maximal receptive field size is within 3° of visual angle. Also, in accordance with the topographic layout of V1, cells above the calcarine fissure respond to visual stimuli presented in the lower visual field and cells below the calcarine fissure respond to visual stimuli presented in the upper visual field (Daniel and Whitterridge 1961; Hubel and Wiesel 1968). Finally, many V1 cells respond to colored stimuli (Dow 1974; Gouras 1974; Hubel and Livingston 1990; Hubel and Wiesel 1968; Michael 1981; Ts'o and Gilbert 1988), which concurs with the observation that phosphenes can exhibit chromatic properties.
By studying etherized monkeys, Schäfer (1888) was the first to suggest a topographic organization for V1 in primates. He found that electrical stimulation of V1 evokes contraversive eye movements and that stimulation above the calcarine fissure produces downward eye movements, whereas stimulation below the calcarine fissure generates upward movements. Over the years others have replicated this basic result in a variety of primates from apes to monkeys (Doty 1965; Grünbaum and Sherrington 1901, 1903; Keating and Gooley 1988; Keating et al. 1983; Schiller 1972, 1977; Wagman 1964; Wagman et al. 1958; Walker and Weaver 1940). In fact, electrical stimulation of V1 evokes saccadic eye movements that terminate in the center of the visual receptive field of the stimulated cells, and long trains of stimulation produce a sequence of multiple saccades until the eyes reach the oculomotor limit (Keating and Gooley 1988; Keating et al. 1983; Schiller 1972, 1977; Tehovnik et al. 2003a). Each saccade within this sequence exhibits a similar size and direction. Thus the retinotopic coding scheme of V1 as described with electrical stimulation is in register with the scheme deduced using single cell recording.
A variety of investigations, from single-cell recording (e.g., Schiller et al. 1976a, b, c) to functional imaging experiments (e.g., Tootell et al. 1988a, b, c), have been used to study the visual functions of primate V1. These techniques have basically corroborated the original observations of Hubel and Wiesel (Hubel and Freeman 1977; Hubel and Wiesel 1968, 1972, 1974a, b, 1977; LeVay et al. 1975): that is, that V1 is organized according to ocular dominance and orientation columns. By the start of the twentieth century and well into the 1960s, electrical stimulation techniques played a central role in investigating the relationship of V1 function to the execution of ocular behavior (Doty 1965, 1969; Grünbaum and Sherrington 1901, 1903; Schäfer 1888; Wagman 1964; Wagman et al. 1958; Walker and Weaver 1940; Ward and Weiskrantz 1969). This line of work, however, was largely eclipsed by the seminal single-unit recording experiments of Hubel and Wiesel.
Nevertheless, a number of investigators have continued to use electrical stimulation techniques to ascertain V1 function as it pertains to ocular and visual responses in primates (Bartlett and Doty 1980; DeYoe 1983; Doty 1970; Keating and Gooley 1988; Keating et al. 1983; Schiller 1972, 1977). Anatomical studies have shown that the deepest layers of V1 (i.e., lamina V) innervate the superior colliculus (Fries 1984; Graham 1982; Lund et al. 1975; Spatz et al. 1970; Vogt-Weisenhorn et al. 1995). The superior colliculus mediates oculomotor responses (Schiller 1984; Wurtz et al. 2001). Schiller (1977) showed that lesions of the superior colliculus abolished all saccadic eye movements evoked electrically from V1 even when currents as high as 3,000 µA were used. Before any lesion, currents as low as 200 µA had been effective. These results have since been replicated (Keating and Gooley 1988; Keating et al. 1983). Accordingly, it appears that V1 can gain access to the brain stem saccade generator by the superior colliculus.
Using the method of Doty (1965), it has been found that monkeys can be conditioned to respond to electrical stimulation delivered to various layers within V1 (Bartlett and Doty 1980; DeYoe 1983). Monkeys were trained to release a lever for reward after the delivery of electrical stimulation. Doty assumed in these types of experiments that monkeys experience a punctate and unitary visual percept when electricity is delivered to any region within V1 because the conditioning effect attributed to stimulation of V1 is immediately generalized to any ipsilateral or contralateral location within the V1 map (Doty 1965, 1970) and because the conditioning response can be obtained using currents as low as 2 µA (Bartlett and Doty 1980; DeYoe 1983). Such low currents can activate V1 neurons confined to the extent of an ocular dominance column (Tehovnik et al. 2002), which is roughly 0.5 mm wide (Blasdel and Salama 1986; LeVay et al. 1975, 1985; Wiesel et al. 1974). The excitability properties of V1 elements mediating the conditioning response are restrictive (chronaxies ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 ms; a chronaxie, a measure of neuronal excitability, is the shortest duration of an effective electrical stimulation pulse having a strength equal to twice the minimum strength required for neuronal excitation), suggesting that a limited population of neurons mediates this response (DeYoe 1983). Furthermore, the excitabilities of these neuronal elements are similar to those that mediate stimulation-evoked phosphenes in human V1 (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Rushton and Brindley 1978). Thus every time electrical stimulation is delivered to monkey V1 to elicit a conditioning response a visual phosphene is likely produced as well.
Over the past 10 yr many new advances have been made in the study of phosphenes and saccadic eye movements evoked by electrical microstimulation of primate V1. This review summarizes these advances with the purpose of providing a foundation for the development of a cortical visual prosthesis for the blind. Issues discussed are as follows: 1) properties of electrical stimulation with an emphasis on effective current spread in V1 ascertained by single-unit recording and behavioral methods; 2) properties of phosphene induction in relation to stimulation parameters, macrostimulation versus microstimulation, and phosphenes elicited in sighted and blind subjects; 3) monkey psychophysics and the study of phosphenes; 4) the generation of saccadic eye movements elicited by microstimulation of V1; and 5) the development of an effective cortical visual prosthesis for the blind.
PROPERTIES OF ELECTRICAL STIMULATION
Effective current spread in V1 based on single-cell data
The effective range of current spread from an electrode tip is proportional to the square root of the current divided by the square root of a constant (Tehovnik 1996). The constant, called the current–distance constant, can range from 300 to 3,000 µA/mm2 for large pyramidal tract cells with an average of about 1,000 µA/mm2 (Stoney et al. 1968). These values were computed with a single cathodal-current pulse having a duration of 0.2 ms. The constant reflects the excitability of a neural element 1 mm away from the electrode tip such that an element having a constant of 1,000 µA/mm2 would require a 1,000-µA current to be activated 1 mm away 50% of the time. The greater the current–distance constant, the less the conduction velocity of an axonal element (Hentall et al. 1984; Jankowska and Roberts 1972; Roberts and Smith 1973). Therefore the size of a neuron's axon and whether it is myelinated affects the current–distance constant.
To estimate the spread of a current pulse in V1, we use a current–distance constant of 1,000 µA/mm2. This is a very conservative estimate for V1, given that the neuronal elements in V1 of primates tend to be smaller than those in other parts of the cerebral cortex (Cragg 1967; Fries 1984; O'Kusky and Colonnier 1982; Peters 1987; Rockel et al. 1980) and that the conduction velocity distributions of pyramidal tract neurons exiting V1 tend to be significantly lower than those of large pyramidal neurons (Finlay et al. 1976; Macpherson et al. 1982). Using the equation, r = (I/K)1/2, where r is the distance of effective current spread from the electrode tip in mm, I is the current used in µA, and K is the current–distance constant in µA/mm2, a 1-, 10-, and 100-µA current pulse delivered to V1 is estimated to activate elements within 0.03, 0.10, and 0.32 mm, respectively, from the electrode tip. Thus a current pulse at or below 100 µA delivered to V1 can directly activate elements confined to a hypercolumn, which is about 1.0 mm wide (Hubel and Wiesel 1977; LeVay et al. 1985).
Cell counts have shown that V1 of macaque monkeys contains about 120,000 neurons per mm3 of cortical tissue (Cragg 1967; O'Kusky and Colonnier 1982; Peters 1987; Rockel et al. 1980); therefore a 1-, 10-, and 100-µA current pulse should activate about 14, 500, and 16,400 neurons, respectively (calculated using 4/3
r3). This calculation assumes a uniform cell density across all V1 layers.
Effective current spread in V1 based on behavioral data
We have found that if electrical stimulation is delivered to V1 before a monkey generates a saccadic eye movement to a visual target, the execution of the saccade is delayed progressively more the closer the visual target is to the receptive-field center of the stimulated neurons (Tehovnik et al. 2004). This method has been used to deduce the effective spread of trains of pulses delivered to V1. The visual target used in this experiment was a bright circular spot of light 0.2° in diameter, which is comparable to the smallest diameter of V1 receptive fields (Dagnelie et al. 1989). The maximum increase in saccadic latency arising from stimulation with a 100-ms train of 100-µA pulses (0.2-ms pulse duration) delivered at 200 Hz occurred when the target was positioned at the center of the receptive field of the stimulated neurons (Fig. 1A). The magnitude of the latency increase decreased systematically as the distance between the target and receptive-field center was increased. For target eccentricities beyond 0.5° from the receptive-field center, the stimulation became ineffective (Fig. 1A). This delay effect was studied at 3 levels of current. The latency difference for stimulation trials compared with nonstimulation trials was computed for 25-, 50-, and 100-µA currents while the target position was varied. The greatest latency difference was observed for all current conditions when the target was situated at the receptive-field center of the stimulated neurons (Fig. 1B). The magnitude of this effect varied positively with current intensity.
|
), which represent 800 µm of V1 tissue (Blasdel and Salama 1986; LeVay et al. 1975, 1985; Wiesel et al. 1974). Therefore 25-, 50-, and 100-µA currents affect V1 tissue within 248, 312, and 464 µm from the electrode tip. These estimates are somewhat greater than those obtained by using the current–distance equation in the preceding section (25-, 50-, and 100-µA currents affect V1 tissue within 158, 224, and 316 µm from the electrode tip). This difference is likely related to the fact that the current–distance equation is based on the delivery of a single pulse, whereas the experiments described here are based on the delivery of a train of 20 pulses. This greater spread is probably related to transynaptic effects (Jankowska et al. 1975; McIlwain 1982).
In conclusion, when a train of stimulation using microampere currents is delivered to the cortex, a relatively punctate region of cortex is activated. This conclusion is consistent with other reports for cortical microstimulation (Nichols and Newsome 2002; Salzman et al. 1990).
Does electrode tip size matter?
It is well known that the larger the surface area of an electrode tip, the greater the current that is required to activate neuronal tissue (Bagshaw and Evans 1976; DeYoe 1983; Keating and Gooley 1988; Milner and Laferriere 1986; West and Wolsencroft 1983; Yeomans et al. 1985). It is for this reason that milliampere currents are required to evoke neuronal responses when macroelectrodes are used (i.e., tip sizes of 0.5 mm2 or more), whereas microampere currents are sufficient when delivered through microelectrodes (i.e., tip sizes of 0.01 mm2 or less). The larger the electrode tip, the less the current density generated at the tip for a given amount of total current. It is current density that determines whether neuronal elements are activated, and it is the current density at the tip that determines whether the stimulation produces tissue damage (Tehovnik 1996). A cathodal pulse with a charge density as high as 438 nC/mm2 per phase is required to activate relatively unexcitable neurons (as derived from Nowak and Bullier 1996: 27,500 µA/mm2 x 0.2 ms pulses/4 per phase), whereas charge densities exceeding 16,000 nC/mm2 per phase produce histological damage after delivering pulses through a microelectrode (tip size = 0.007 mm2) continuously for many hours (McCreery et al. 1990). Because most studies use different parameters of stimulation, no one criterion is suitable for setting a damage threshold. Usable stimulation parameters are those that yield stable responses over time (McCreery et al. 2002; Yeomans 1990). Pulse durations, however, should be routinely set to the chronaxies of the directly stimulated elements (Tehovnik 1996). Durations that surpass the chronaxies do not contribute significantly to the evoked response. Charge-balanced biphasic pulses should be used to reduce damage resulting from electrode polarization (Tehovnik 1996).
PHOSPHENE INDUCTION
Stimulation parameters
As mentioned earlier, electrical stimulation of V1 in humans tends to evoke a phosphene that conforms to the receptive-field properties of V1 cells: i.e., a circular spot that is stationary as long as the eyes are immobile. Parameters of stimulation such as current, pulse duration, train duration, pulse frequency, and pulse polarity affect the generation of phosphenes.
A broad range of currents has been used to evoke phosphenes. Currents in the milliampere range are required to elicit phosphenes when stimulation is delivered through a macroelectrode located on the surface of V1 (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Lee et al. 2000; Rushton and Brindley 1978), and currents as low as 2 µA are effective when using a microelectrode positioned in the deepest layers of V1 (Schmidt et al. 1996). When using surface macroelectrodes, increasing current initially increases the brightness of a phosphene, and further increases subsequently increase the size (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Rushton and Brindley 1978). The effect of increments in current is more complicated when using depth microelectrodes. Although increases in current produced brighter phosphenes, such increases do not have a uniform effect on phosphene size (Schmidt et al. 1996). For some sites an increment in current produces an increase in phosphene size, for other sites it produces a decrease, and still for others it produces an increase followed by a decrease (Schmidt et al. 1996).
Pulse durations used to evoke phosphenes have been as short as 0.01 ms and as long as 1 ms (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996). The chronaxie of phosphene induction is typically <0.4 ms (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Rushton and Brindley 1978); therefore increases in pulse duration beyond 1 ms do not contribute substantially to phosphene induction. Increasing the pulse duration increases the brightness of a phosphene (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996).
A train of between 5 and 15 pulses delivered at 50 Hz is needed to produce the sensation of a phosphene (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974). The onset and offset of a phosphene is locked to the onset and offset of the stimulation train (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996). When using surface macrostimulation, phosphenes extinguish before the termination of stimulation for train lengths >10 to 15 s (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974), whereas when using depth microstimulation, they extinguish at train lengths >1 s (Schmidt et al. 1996). The brightness and size of a phosphene are increased with an increase in train duration (Schmidt et al. 1996).
A wide range of pulse frequencies from as low as 25 Hz to as high as 4,000 Hz have been used to generate phosphenes (Bak et al. 1990; Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996). Frequencies above 30 Hz are the best for producing steady phosphenes with minimal or no flicker (Bak et al. 1990; Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996). The most effective frequencies range between 100 and 200 Hz (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996), which is within the range of firing frequencies of V1 cells activated by a visual stimulus (Gawne and Martin 2002; Nowak et al. 1995). Higher frequencies have been reported to produce brighter phosphenes (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996).
Mixed reports have arisen regarding the effects of pulse polarity on phosphene induction. Using surface macrostimulation, no threshold differences were reported between cathodal and anodal pulses for the induction of phosphenes (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974). For surface stimulation, it is commonly believed that anodal pulses are superior to cathodal pulses for evoking a response (Ranck 1975). Using depth microstimulation, cathodal pulses were always more effective than anodal pulses for producing phosphenes (Schmidt et al. 1996). This result concurs with what would be expected for depth stimulation (Ranck 1975).
Two visual features that are affected systematically by manipulating the parameters of stimulation are the brightness and size of phosphenes. Increases in current or pulse duration increase the brightness and size of a phosphene, particularly when using surface macrostimulation (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Rushton and Brindley 1978; Schmidt et al. 1996). Increasing current can increase the firing rate of the stimulated elements (Ronner 1982). This agrees with the unit properties of cells in V1. That is, as the brightness (or contrast) of a visual stimulus is increased, the firing rate of cells increases to some asymptotic level (Albrecht and Hamilton 1982; Sclar et al. 1990; Tolhurst 1989; Tolhurst et al. 1981). Also, increments in current or pulse duration increase the number of elements activated because of the higher current densities generated at the electrode tip and because of the greater overall volume of tissue activated (Tehovnik 1996). The higher current densities at the tip would maximally activate more neurons, thereby generating a high-contrast phosphene (Albrecht and Hamilton 1982; Sclar et al. 1990) and the increase in the volume of neurons activated should produce an increase in the size of the phosphene as additional hypercolumns are activated.
Increases in pulse frequency and train duration also increase the brightness and size of phosphenes (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996). These parametric increases would drive the directly stimulated cells at a higher rate (Finlay et al. 1976), which would translate into a brighter phosphene (Albrecht and Hamilton 1982; Sclar et al. 1990; Tolhurst 1989; Tolhurst et al. 1981) and produce greater intracortical synaptic spread of the signal (Jankowska et al. 1975; McIlwain 1982), thereby increasing phosphene size.
Accommodation to repeated bouts of stimulation
The brightness of an evoked phosphene accommodates after repeated bouts of stimulation. When a 125-ms train of 0.1-ms pulses (with pulse frequency of 200 Hz) was presented every 4 s and repeated 50 times, the relative brightness between the first and last bout of stimulation decreased by 80% (Schmidt et al. 1996). Increasing the train and pulse duration of stimulation to 250 ms and 0.4 ms, respectively, reduced accommodation. Furthermore after repeated bouts of stimulation over a period of many months, V1 tissue became more resistant to accommodation. Accommodation occurs for both surface and depth stimulation and it is observed in both sighted and blind subjects (Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Rushton and Brindley 1978; Schmidt et al. 1996). Brightness accommodation must be understood and controlled to develop an effective V1 prosthesis.
Macro- versus microelectrodes
Most studies that have evoked phosphenes from V1 in humans have used surface macroelectrodes (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Lee et al. 2000). Fewer studies have used intracortical microelectrodes (Bak et al. 1990; Schmidt et al. 1996). With surface macroelectrodes, the electrode spacing must be >2 to 3 mm for subjects to report 2 distinct phosphenes (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974), whereas with intracortical microelectrodes 2 distinct phosphenes can be resolved with an electrode spacing as little as 0.5 mm (Bak et al. 1990; Schmidt et al. 1996). This minimal spacing agrees with that reported for monkeys trained to discriminate between the activation of 2 closely spaced intracortical electrodes (Doty 1965). Also, with the use of intracortical microelectrodes, currents in the microampere range can be used (Schmidt et al. 1996), the current spread of which may be confined to within one hypercolumn (Tehovnik et al. 2002, 2004). Confining current to one hypercolumn is not possible with surface macroelectrodes because currents above 1 mA and as high as 15 mA are routinely needed to evoke phosphenes (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Lee et al. 2000).
Typically, phosphenes generated by surface macroelectrodes fail to exhibit chromatic features (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Lee et al. 2000). This is less true when using intracortical microelectrodes, provided a current of <10 µA is used (Schmidt et al. 1996). Colored phosphenes are more readily evoked with low currents, perhaps because fewer V1 neurons are activated. Activating regions of V1 that are known to contain neurons mediating chromatic vision might increase the chances of evoking colored phosphenes (Livingston and Hubel 1984; Michael 1981). Whether other visual features coded by single cells can be studied at the lowest current levels remains to be seen.
Stimulating through multiple electrodes
Electrical stimulation has been delivered through multiple electrodes in V1 of humans to induce the perception of patterns such as horizontal and vertical lines as well as letters (Dobelle et al. 1974, 1976; Schmidt et al. 1996). With the use of microelectrodes, Schmidt et al. (1996) found that a train duration of over 200 ms is sufficient to evoke a pattern of phosphenes, and as mentioned earlier a pair of electrodes needs to be separated by 0.5 mm or more to evoke 2 separate phosphenes. A major concern in evoking patterns is that each phosphene constituting a pattern must be of comparable brightness; otherwise a human subject judges the collection of phosphenes as separate objects (Schmidt et al. 1996). For one object to be perceived, currents delivered through each electrode have to be adjusted until all phosphenes of a pattern are of comparable brightness.
Phosphene induction in sighted versus blind subjects
When electrical stimulation is delivered to V1 of humans, the evoked phosphene is most often described as a bright spot of light, and only rarely is it described as a dark spot (Brindley and Lewin 1968a, b; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Schmidt et al. 1996). Based on what we know about the visual system, there is no reason to think that light-on responses should be more common than light-off responses (Schiller 1992). Cells in V1 respond to light and dark edges and spots, as well as to the onset and termination of flashed light and dark stimuli (Hubel and Livingston 1990; Hubel and Wiesel 1968; Schiller et al. 1976a). So why are bright phosphenes overreported by human subjects? Two factors might account for this, one related to blindness and the other to the way subjects are tested. Regarding blindness, most studies of electrically evoked phosphenes have been performed using blind subjects. In the one study that has successfully evoked both bright and dark phosphenes from V1, all of the subjects were sighted (Lee et al. 2000). It is therefore possible that in blind subjects the default phosphene is always bright because the OFF channels have been rendered inoperative by the blindness, which has fixed the background illumination level of the visual system to pitch black, as happens when one closes one's eyes.
The way sighted subjects are tested for phosphene induction should determine whether white or black phosphenes are reported. If the background illumination during testing is set to pitch black then once again the default phosphene should be white. On the other hand, if the background illumination is of intermediate brightness then both white and black phosphenes should be evoked, as found by Lee et al. (2000).
Visual adaptation and afterimages
Experiments in which images are stabilized on the retina have shown that after a relatively short time, measured in seconds, the images fade and disappear. Numerous studies have explored this dramatic effect (e.g., Pritchard et al. 1960). In large part this phenomenon is the result of adaptation processes that occur in the retina (Schiller 1996). Thus when a stimulus is presented and maintained, the responses of the retinal ganglion cells gradually decline to their spontaneous activity. Subsequent removal of the image elicits a new set of responses. A persistent bright spot of light elicits an initial vigorous response in ON-center ganglion cells followed by a gradual decline in their activity. When the stimulus is then turned off, a vigorous response is produced in the OFF-center ganglion cells whose receptive fields fall within the region of the spot. This activity elicits the perception of a negative afterimage. The magnitude and duration of the initial responses as well as those of the afterimage is a function of the contrast of the stimulus: the higher the contrast the greater the initial response and the more pronounced and longer lasting the afterimage. The effect works equally with light-incremental and light-decremental stimuli. By contrast, images do not fade with prolonged electrical stimulation of V1. Phosphenes can be generated for over 1 min using a continuous train of stimulation. Once the stimulation is terminated, there is never any report of an afterimage (Brindley 1972).
MONKEY PSYCHOPYSICS AND THE STUDY OF PHOSPHENES
Stimulation-induced interference
It has been known for some time that electrical stimulation of V1 disrupts a monkey's performance of visual tasks (Ward and Weiskrantz 1969). When electrical stimulation is delivered concurrently with the presentation of a visual target placed in the receptive field of the stimulated neurons, saccades generated toward the receptive-field target can be either suppressed or facilitated, depending on the cortical layers activated (Schiller and Tehovnik 2001). In the upper layers of V1 interference is most commonly obtained: the stimulation decreases the probability of saccades and increases the latency of saccades made to the receptive-field target. By contrast, in the lower layers stimulation generally produces facilitation: the probability of saccades being generated to the receptive-field target increases and the latency of saccade initiation decreases.
To illustrate these effects, monkeys were presented with paired targets such that one target of a pair was positioned in the receptive field of the stimulated neurons and the other target of a pair was located in the mirror-position of the opposite hemifield (Fig. 2, A and B). On a fraction of trials a train of electrical stimulation was delivered that began 30 ms after the presentation of the first target (Fig. 2C). Thirty milliseconds is about the minimal time it takes for cells in V1 to discharge after the presentation of a visual stimulus (Miller and Glickstein 1967; Nowak et al. 1995; Vogels and Orban 1994). In the absence of electrical stimulation, monkeys will generate saccades to each target of a pair roughly 50% of the time when the targets are presented simultaneously (Schiller and Tehovnik 2001), although there can be subtle position habits (Tehovnik et al. 2002). If one target of a pair leads the other target, however, monkeys tend to produce saccades to the first target. By varying the temporal offset between the targets, a psychophysical function can be generated showing the probability of saccades being made to the receptive-field target (Fig. 2D, Control). When electrical stimulation of a site produces interference, this function is shifted rightward (Fig. 2D, Interference), whereas when electrical stimulation of a site produces facilitation this function is shifted leftward (Fig. 2D, Facilitation).
|
). Several experiments have been conducted to investigate these ideas (Slocum and Tehovnik 2004; Tehovnik and Slocum 2003a, b; Tehovnik et al. 2002).
After testing for interference and/or facilitation at fine depth increments with respect to the cortical surface, it was found that the most pronounced interference occurred at 0.8 mm below the cortical surface and the most pronounced facilitation occurred at 1.7 mm below the cortical surface (Fig. 3). Additionally, it was discovered that anodal pulses were superior to cathodal pulses for inducing interference (Fig. 4). This suggests that cell bodies and axon terminals are being activated disproportionately more than axons to produce the interference effect (Ranck 1975). According to Ranck, effective stimulation of neural tissue induces an outward current at the initial segment and nodes of Ranvier, thereby triggering an action potential. When cathodal current is delivered adjacent to a neural element, an outward current is induced, causing the membrane to depolarize, whereas when an anodal current is delivered the resulting inward current causes the membrane to be hyperpolarized. For this reason cathodal pulses are more effective than anodal pulses at activating axons (Armstrong et al. 1973; McIntyre and Grill 2000; Porter 1963; Rattay 1999; Stoney et al. 1968). When an anodal current is delivered to a cell body or axon terminal an inward current is produced at the cell body or terminal, whereas an outward current occurs at the axon. This outward current activates the neuron. This property makes anodal pulses superior to cathodal pulses when activating cell bodies and terminals (Armstrong et al. 1973; Clendenin et al. 1974; McIntyre and Grill 2000; Porter 1963; Rattay 1999; Stoney et al. 1968).
|
|
). If interference were a result of activation of the visual inputs originating from the lateral geniculate nucleus, interference should vary according to which eye is presented with the visual stimuli, given that these inputs are organized according to eye dominance (Hubel and Wiesel 1972; LeVay et al. 1975, 1985). After targeting the visual input layers with our stimulating electrode (Tehovnik and Slocum 2003b), we found that stimulation here produced maximal interference when visual stimuli were presented to the eye with the primary (i.e., ocular dominant) input to the stimulated column, and produced less interference when presented to the eye with the lesser (i.e., ocular inferior) input to the stimulated column (Fig. 5). This result was also obtained when an animal generated saccades to a single target located in the receptive field of the stimulated neurons.
|
-aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic interneurons that are concentrated near the input layers of V1 (Fitzpatrick et al. 1987; Hubel and Wiesel 1972; Lund et al. 1975). There is evidence supporting both possibilities. Stimulating V1 with a single pulse renders neurons in the lateral geniculate nucleus, as well as neurons within V1, unresponsive to visual stimuli for tens of milliseconds (Chung and Ferster 1998; Schiller and Malpeli 1977), and injection of GABAergic agents into V1 disrupts both the selection and detection of visual targets (Newsome et al. 1985; Schiller and Tehovnik 2003). Accordingly, interference that is produced while delivering stimulation concurrently with the presentation of visual targets seems to occur by activation of the visual input fibers of V1, whereas facilitation under such conditions is produced by activation of the output fibers. In subsequent sections, we will return to the issue of activating the output fibers of V1.
The relationship of phosphene generation to interference and facilitation is not known. Whether stimulating individual layers within V1 differentially induces phosphenes and whether phosphene induction is related to interference and facilitation needs to be determined in both monkeys and humans.
Stimulation-induced saccadic delays
Saccadic eye movements to a visual target positioned in the receptive field of stimulated V1 neurons are systematically delayed when stimulation is delivered to those neurons while monkeys are actively fixating (Tehovnik et al. 2004). This effect is confined to the receptive-field location of the stimulated neurons (Fig. 1). The greatest delay occurs when a train of stimulation is delivered during the fixation period immediately before the onset of the visual target. The optimal parameters of stimulation for the delay are as follows: 1) anodal pulses (as opposed to cathodal pulses); 2) train durations of >40 ms with frequencies >100 Hz; and 3) pulse durations of <0.4 ms. Delays are evoked with currents as low as 4 µA.
The chronaxies of V1 elements mediating the saccadic delay were determined and compared with those of V1 elements mediating phosphenes in human V1 (Tehovnik et al. 2004). A chronaxie is a measure of neuronal excitability such that axons have shorter chronaxies than cell bodies (axons: 0.03–7 ms; cell bodies: 7–31 ms; Nowak and Bullier 1998; Ranck 1975), and large, myelinated axons have shorter chronaxies than small, nonmyelinated axons (large: 0.03–0.7 ms; small: >1.0 ms; Li and Bak 1976; Ranck 1975; West and Wolstencroft 1983). Chronaxies have been determined for elements mediating a functional MRI signal, neurotransmitter release, classical conditioning, self-stimulation, phosphene induction, and saccadic eye movements (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; DeYoe 1983; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Farber et al. 1997; Matthews 1977; Tehovnik and Lee 1993; Tehovnik and Sommer 1997; Tehovnik et al. 2003a; Tolias et al. 2003).
To determine the excitability of the directly stimulated elements inducing the saccadic delay, current–duration functions (Fig. 6A) were normalized such that the current threshold to evoke a 20-ms delay was set to unity for a pulse duration of 0.7 ms and all other thresholds were expressed as a multiple of this threshold (Fig. 6B). The average latency difference of 20 ms is greater than 3 SDs of the mean difference observed when comparing nonstimulation and dummy stimulation trials (SD = 4.3, n = 35; Tehovnik et al. 2004). Power functions were fitted for every data set pertaining to a site. The chronaxie value for a site can be determined as the pulse duration at which the power function crosses 2 units of threshold (Fig. 6B, dashed horizontal line). The chronaxie values ranged from 0.13 to 0.24 ms. This range of chronaxies overlaps with those reported for elements that mediate phosphene induction in human V1 (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Rushton and Brindley 1978). Therefore every time electrical stimulation produces a saccadic delay, monkeys probably experience a visual phosphene, as is presumed to occur when conditioning responses are evoked by stimulation of macaque V1 (Bartlett and Doty 1980; DeYoe 1983; Doty 1965).
|
; Slocum and Tehovnik 2004; Tehovnik and Slocum 2003a; Tehovnik et al. 2002) we wanted to see whether the current threshold for producing a saccadic delay also varied as a function of cortical depth (Tehovnik et al. 2004). The current threshold to induce a 20-ms saccadic delay was determined as a function of cortical depth (Fig. 7). It was found that the lowest current thresholds for the induction of a saccadic delay occurred in the deepest layers of V1 (from 1.5 to 2.25 mm below the top of V1).
|
; Slocum and Tehovnik 2004; Tehovnik and Slocum 2003a; Tehovnik et al. 2002). By delivering electrical stimulation during active fixation instead of during saccade execution (i.e., concurrently with the execution of the visual task), the excitability of the cells between the deepest layers of V1 and the saccade generator in the brain stem that mediates saccades is suppressed (Fig. 8); currents as high as 1,500 µA fail to evoke saccades from V1 during active fixation (Tehovnik et al. 2003b). We believe that this suppression of saccades enables the neurons within the deepest layers of V1 to participate in the saccadic delay.
|
). The duration of this effect tends to be longer when the pulse is delivered to V1 as compared with the optic tract. Also, the delivery of a single pulse to superficial V1 mainly dampens the responsivity of cells within V1, whereas stimulation of deeper regions of V1 affects cells in V1 plus those in the lateral geniculate nucleus (Chung and Ferster 1998). Chung and Ferster (1998) suggested that the deeper stimulation might be activating the lateral geniculate nucleus antidromically from lamina IV as well as orthodromically by a corticothalamic projection originating from lamina VI (Fig. 8).
The excitability properties of the elements that mediate the saccadic delay are similar to those of pyramidal neurons whose chronaxies vary from 0.1 to 0.4 ms (Asanuma et al. 1976; Stoney et al. 1968). Stimulation of these elements may delay saccades by activating pyramidal fibers intrinsic to V1 and by exciting such fibers that feedback to the lateral geniculate nucleus. The pyramidal elements can then activate GABAergic elements intrinsic to these structures (Fitzpatrick et al. 1987; Montero 1986), thereby interrupting the transmission of visual information. This idea is consistent with the observations of Schiller and Malpeli (1977) and Chung and Ferster (1998) and with known projections between the striate cortex and the lateral geniculate nucleus (Lund et al. 1975). It also concurs with the finding that cortical neurons are hyperpolarized for many tens of milliseconds after the delivery of a single electrical pulse to cortex and that this hyperpolarization is mediated by GABA (Krnjevi
and Schwartz 1967; Krnjevi et al. 1966a, b, c).
Using saccadic eye movements to study phosphenes
To assess phosphene induction using saccadic eye movements, we trained a monkey to generate saccadic eye movements to the receptive field of the stimulated V1 neurons using 6 conditions, all randomized (Fig. 9, right). For all conditions, the monkey had to acquire the fixation spot and remain fixated for 300 ms. After termination of the fixation spot one of the 6 conditions could occur.
|
CONDITION B. A visual target was presented in the visual field of the cells under study similar to that of condition a; electrical stimulation was delivered to those cells 30 ms after the onset of the visual target; and the monkey was required to generate a saccade to a target location to get a juice reward.
CONDITION C. No visual target was presented and electrical stimulation was delivered to the cells under study 130 ms after the termination of the fixation spot; a juice reward was provided to the monkey if a saccade was generated to the receptive-field location after the onset of stimulation. We interpret an increase in the probability of evoking saccades under this condition as a monkey responding to a putative phosphene produced by stimulation.
CONDITION D. No visual target was presented, no electrical stimulation was delivered, but a juice reward was provided to the monkey if it generated a saccade to the receptive-field location. This condition matched condition c except for the absence of electrical stimulation.
CONDITION E. The monkey was provided with juice immediately after termination of the fixation spot. Electrical stimulation was delivered 130 ms after the offset of the fixation spot. The time of stimulation with respect to fixation-spot offset was the same as in conditions b and c. Condition e determined whether electrical stimulation could drive the eyes into the receptive-field location after reward delivery.
CONDITION F. A juice reward was delivered immediately after termination of the fixation spot, but no stimulation was delivered. This condition tested whether the monkey spontaneously generated saccades into the receptive-field location after reward delivery.
Electrical stimulation occurred with respect to the onset of the visual target whether real (as for condition b) or virtual (as for conditions c and e). The stimulation commenced 30 ms after target onset. This is roughly the minimum time for a visual signal to be transmitted from the retina to V1 (Miller and Glickstein 1967; Nowak et al. 1995; Vogels and Orban 1994).
The percentage of saccades made to the receptive target across the 6 conditions varied (Fig. 9, left). For conditions a and b the monkey generated saccades to the receptive-field location over 95% of the time as defined by the location of the visual target. For condition c, the monkey generated saccades to the receptive-field location over 60% of the time as defined by the stimulation. This condition was considered the test for phosphene induction. On the various control trials (conditions d, e, and f) the monkey generated saccades to the receptive-field location <20% of the time. Because saccades were rarely evoked into the receptive-field location of the stimulated neurons in condition e, it is highly unlikely that the effect attributed to phosphene induction in condition c is the result of a simple motor response. Also the latencies of saccades generated to the visual target were comparable to those generated during stimulation in condition c. If the phosphene induced were identical to that of the visual target (i.e., monochromatic, bright circular, 0.2° in diameter at 100% contrast) one might expect the performance of the monkey to be closer to 95% than to 65%. On initial inspection, however, these results suggest that the monkey was generating saccades to a stimulation-induced phosphene in condition c.
Better evidence that monkeys can detect phosphenes during electrical stimulation of V1 would be to have them generate memory-guided saccades to the location of the phosphene long after the stimulation has been terminated. This type of experiment dissociates the sensory aspects of phosphene induction from the possibility that the stimulation is just driving the eyes into the receptive-field location. This type of experiment was recently done by Bradley and colleagues (2004). They trained a monkey to generate saccadic eye movements to remembered locations as defined by stimulations delivered to the V1 map using a microelectrode array implanted in one hemisphere. A relationship was found between the endpoint of a memory-guided saccade and the receptive-field location of the stimulated neurons.
Application of the Schwartz model to phosphenes
The logarithmic conformal mapping model of Schwartz (1994) can be extended to predict the size and shape of the visual field represented by the activation of a particular region of cortical tissue in the V1 map of the rhesus monkey. The use of a conformal mapping accounts for the magnification factor of V1, while preserving the angular relationship between nearby points in the visual field. Electrical stimulation activates a tissue with a radial spread confined to within 0.5 mm for currents of 100 µA or less (Tehovnik et al. 2004). The size and shape of the visual field coded by an area of V1 tissue depends on the site of stimulation in the V1 map. Figure 10 shows how stimulation within different regions of the operculum would be expected to activate the central 7° of a hemifield.
|
), stimulation of V1 in rhesus monkeys induces a saccadic delay that occurs only when the visual target is positioned within the receptive-field location of the stimulated neurons, and the excitabilities of neurons that mediate this delay are similar to those described for elements mediating phosphene induction in human V1. Stimulation-induced saccadic delay could be used to infer the size and shape of a visual phosphene by noting the size and shape of the delay field. Once deduced, the size and shape of the delay field could be compared with the size and shape of the phosphene as predicted by the conformal mapping scheme of Schwartz (1994). Retinal convergence onto V1 elements
An issue of some concern is how much visual field resolution is lost by stimulating elements in V1 rather than stimulating earlier portions of the retinostriate pathway. The smallest receptive-field size of V1 neurons is 0.2° (or 12 min) (Dagnelie et al. 1989; Dow et al. 1981; van Essen et al. 1984). The diameter of such a receptive-field size is spanned by roughly 12 cones. The minimal acuity in monkeys is about 1 min of arc, which is the separation between 2 adjacent cones. Therefore stimulating a single element in V1 that codes for a minimal receptive-field size might be expected to produce a phosphene whose size is an order of magnitude greater than that coded by retinal receptor elements.
SACCADIC EYE MOVEMENTS
Excitability properties across V1 laminae
As mentioned, it has been known for over 100 yr that eye movements can be evoked electrically from V1 (Doty 1965; Grünbaum and Sherrington 1901, 1903; Schäfer 1888; Wagman 1964; Wagman et al. 1958; Walker and Weaver 1940). These eye movements are saccadic and the saccadic vectors generated are the same at any gaze angle, thus always terminating in the receptive field of the stimulated neurons (Keating and Gooley 1988; Keating et al. 1983; McIlwain 1988; Schiller 1972, 1977; Schiller and Tehovnik 2001; Tehovnik et al. 2002, 2003a). Recently, we found that if electrical stimulation is delivered after the termination of the fixation spot and if stimulation trials are interleaved with trials that induce an animal to prepare to generate a saccade to the receptive field of the stimulated cells, saccades can be evoked from V1 using currents as low as 2 µA. This behavioral manipulation has enabled us to describe the excitability properties of V1 elements mediating saccadic eye movements using the lowest microampere currents (Tehovnik et al. 2003a).
Four measures of neuronal excitability related to saccade production were made as a function of cortical depth within macaque V1 (Tehovnik et al. 2003a): current threshold, saccadic latency, anode–cathode ratios, and chronaxies. The current threshold to evoke saccades into the receptive-field location of the stimulated neurons on 50% of stimulation trials was determined. At the surface of V1, saccadic eye movements could not be evoked with currents as high as 30 µA (Fig. 11). As the electrode was advanced into the brain the current threshold dropped, reaching a minimum of 3 µA at 1.75 mm below the top of V1. This depth is situated near lamina V, the major output layer of V1 that innervates the superior colliculus (Fig. 8) (Fries 1984; Graham 1982; Lund et al. 1975; Spatz et al. 1970; Vogt-Weisenhorn et al. 1995).
|
; Tehovnik and Lee 1993; Tehovnik et al. 1994). We believe that this longer latency is attributable to the tonic inhibition that is exerted on the superior colliculus (Hikosaka and Wurtz 1985). The superior colliculus is a major conduit of neuronal transmission between V1 and the brain stem saccade generator and this transmission likely depends on both excitatory and inhibitory inputs (Hikosoka and Wurtz 1985; Keating and Gooley 1988; Keating et al. 1983; Schiller 1977).
|
; McIntyre and Grill 2000; Porter 1963; Rattay 1999; Stoney et al. 1968). Between 0 and 1.75 mm below the cortical surface anodal pulses were superior to cathodal pulses for evoking saccades from V1, whereas beyond 1.75 mm cathodal pulses were superior (Fig. 13). This suggests that between 0 and 1.75 mm below the cortical surface the stimulated elements for the evocation of saccades are composed primarily of cell bodies and terminals and beyond 1.75 mm the stimulated elements are primarily axonal. The latter reinforces the notion that the output layers of V1, whose axons project to the superior colliculus, carry the saccade signal to the brain stem saccade generator (Fig. 8).
|
; Stoney et al. 1968). The chronaxies for elements mediating saccades in superficial V1 were longer than the chronaxies for elements mediating saccades in deep V1 (Fig. 14). Indeed, pyramidal fibers in superficial V1 are smaller and therefore less excitable than those of deep V1 (Peters and Sethares 1991).
|
; Peters and Sethares 1991; Spatz et al. 1970). The neuronal activation of superficial V1 might gain access to the saccade generator by this connection. If true, blockade of the deep layers should abolish all saccades evoked from the superficial layers. In conclusion, the deepest layers of V1, which are known to innervate the superior colliculus, are the most excitable for the generation of saccadic eye movements.
Effect of behavioral state
The behavioral state of an animal can affect the chances of evoking saccadic eye movements electrically from neocortex (Tehovnik and Slocum 2004). During active fixation, currents as high as 1,500 µA are ineffective at evoking saccades from macaque V1, whereas saccades can be evoked from dorsomedial frontal cortex and frontal eye fields using currents below 1,500 and 100 µA, respectively (Fig. 15). When stimulation is delivered when an animal is not actively fixating, currents below 100 µA are uniformly effective at evoking saccades from all these cortical regions. We have suggested that during active fixation V1's access to the brain stem saccade generator is cancelled by tonic inhibition of the superior colliculus (Tehovnik et al. 2003b). If true, reducing this tonic inhibition by infusing bicuculline (a GABAergic antagonist) into the superior colliculus, for example, should reduce the current threshold for evoking saccades from V1.
|
; Lee and Tehovnik 1995; Lynch et al. 1977). Electrical stimulation of the medial and frontal eye fields and the lateral intraparietal area can inhibit the execution of saccades (Burman and Bruce 1997; Schiller and Tehovnik 2001; Tehovnik and Lee 1993).
Manipulating the behavioral state of monkeys affects the expression of V1 neurons such that the execution of saccadic eye movements is either facilitated or suppressed. We are able to facilitate stimulation-evoked saccades by delivering electrical stimulation to V1 after the termination of the visual fixation spot and by randomly interleaving stimulation trials with trials that induce an animal to prepare to generate a saccade to the receptive field of the stimulated neurons (Tehovnik et al. 2002, 2003a, b). On the other hand, by delivering electrical stimulation to V1 during active fixation we can suppress all stimulation-evoked saccades and delay the execution of saccades made to visual targets placed into the receptive field of the stimulated neurons (Tehovnik et al. 2004). By manipulating the behavioral state, different behavioral responses (i.e., saccade production and saccade delay) can be studied at the same site of stimulation in V1. Previously, we had argued that different populations of neurons mediate saccade production and saccade delay: saccade production by the corticotectal pathway and saccade delay by the corticogeniculate pathway (Fig. 8).
Because the behavioral state of an animal can so greatly affect the current threshold for evoking saccades from V1, V1 cannot be as intimately connected to the saccade generator in the brain stem as are the frontal eye fields, for instance. Thus just because saccades can be evoked electrically from V1 using microampere currents does not mean that V1 is a motor area.
Finally, how much of the electrically evoked response pertaining to saccade production from V1 in monkeys is the result of a stimulation-triggered visual phosphene? Because saccadic eye movements can be evoked from regions of neocortex not normally associated with the production of visual phosphenes [e.g., the lateral intraparietal area, the frontal and medial eye fields, prefrontal cortex, and so on (Tehovnik and Slocum 2004)], the electrical evocation of saccades alone cannot be used to argue for the generation of phosphenes. Nevertheless, the recent results of Bradley et al. (2004) suggest that monkeys are able to generate memory-guided saccades to the receptive-field locations of V1 neurons that have been stimulated electrically. We now need to determine whether the effects of Bradley et al. are unique to V1 and to assess psychophysically what a monkey experiences perceptually while electrically stimulating V1.
How V1 gains access to the saccade generator
Unlike the eye fields in the frontal lobes, V1 can gain effective access to the saccade generator in the brain stem by the superior colliculus (Fig. 16). Much evidence supports this contention. First, the deepest layers of V1 innervate the superior colliculus (Finlay et al. 1976; Fries 1984; Graham 1982; Lund et al. 1975; Spatz et al. 1970; Vogt-Weisenhorn et al. 1995). Second, the lowest current threshold and shortest latencies for evoking saccades electrically occur with stimulation of the deepest layers of V1 (Tehovnik et al. 2003a). Finally, lesions of the superior colliculus abolish all saccades normally evoked from V1, even using current in the milliampere range (Keating and Gooley 1988; Keating et al. 1983; Schiller 1977).
|
; Keating et al. 1983). This further supports the notion that V1 gains access to the brain stem saccade generator primarily by the superior colliculus (Fig. 16). Does V1 send a signal to trigger saccades?
Supèr et al. (2004) found that V1 cells begin to discharge between 100 and 200 ms before the onset of saccadic eye movements generated across a textured background, with the best response occurring when the saccades were made to the receptive field of the neurons under study. Similarly, Boch (1986) found that cells in V1 fire immediately before the execution of a saccade made to a visual target positioned in the corresponding receptive field; however, most of the response was related to the offset of the fixation spot rather than to the onset of the visually guided saccade. Others have failed to find any discharge before the execution of visually guided saccades for a majority of cells tested (Wurtz and Mohler 1976). As mentioned previously, cells in the deepest layers of V1 send projections to the superior colliculus, and stimulation of these layers is believed to activate this pathway (Finlay et al. 1976; Tehovnik et al. 2003a). Whether corticotectal cells of V1 (Fig. 8) are activated during the execution of visually guided saccades remains to be determined.
TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE VISUAL PROSTHESIS
Some 1.1 million people in the United States are legally blind, with the vast majority of this group exhibiting blindness attributed to retinal damage (e.g., age-related macular degeneration, retinal damage resulting from diabetes, etc.; Maynard 2001). Therefore the development of an effective visual prosthesis that bypasses the retina is of major importance.
To a large extent, the development of an effective V1 prosthesis for the blind has been hampered by 3 factors. First, much of the reported work conducted on human subjects over the past 40 yr has been done by delivering milliampere currents to the surface of V1 (e.g., Brindley and Lewin 1968a, b; Button and Putnam 1962; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Dobelle et al. 1974, 1976; Lee et al. 2000; Penfield and Peret 1963; Pollen 1975). Such a procedure activates the neuronal elements within V1 en masse with no regard for its laminar or columnar microstructure and occasionally evokes sensations of pain resulting from meningeal or scalp stimulation. Second, engineers designing visual prosthetic implants for human V1 do not have an effective animal model by which to guide the placement of their microelectrodes. Nor do they have a way of determining systematically the range of visual percepts that are evoked when stimulation is delivered to various portions of V1. Third, detailed assessment of the effects of electrical stimulation can be done only on a limited basis in human subjects; by contrast animals can be studied over extended time periods by collecting thousands of trials daily using a variety of psychophysical procedures and the circuits involved in the electrical generation of visual percepts can be manipulated using lesions and pharmacological agents.
We suggest that the use of macaque monkeys to study phosphene induction along with continued testing on humans with microelectrode implants in V1 should accelerate the development of an effective visual prosthesis for the blind, an idea advanced by Troyk, Bradley, and colleagues (Bradley et al. 2004; Troyk et al. 2003). Before this can be accomplished, however, some issues need to be addressed.
1) We believe that on delivery of stimulation to V1 in macaques phosphenes are induced that are oculocentric, punctate, and confined to the receptive field of the stimulated neurons as long as microampere currents are used. We have yet to determine the featural characteristics of these phosphenes such as their shape, brightness, color, and so on, and whether stimulating through many electrodes can produce patterns of phosphenes. This will require the use of psychophysical tests whereby monkeys are made to match the features of phosphenes with those of some real image.
2) As discussed, electrical stimulation of macaque V1 immediately before the animal generates a saccade to a visual target in the receptive field of the stimulated cells delays the execution of the eye movements (Tehovnik et al. 2004). The directly stimulated elements accounting for this effect exhibited a narrow range of excitabilities, indicating that a restricted population of V1 elements mediates this effect. We know that the delay effect is dependent on the location and size of the visual target such that the visual target needs to be situated in and confined to the receptive field of the stimulated neurons. If the contrast, brightness, color, and shape of the visual target also influence the delay effect, then this method will be useful in determining the visual features mediated by the directly stimulated neurons. For instance, if the delay effect were best for dark targets as compared with light targets, this would suggest that the directly stimulated elements produce a dark phosphene. We suspect that such effects would be best realized at the lowest currents that recruit the fewest number of V1 elements.
3) The receptive field size of cells increases as an electrode is advanced from superficial to deep layers of V1 (Hubel and Wiesel 1968). If receptive-field size in V1 can be used as an indicator of phosphene size (as we believe), advancing an electrode from superficial to deep sites in V1 should increase the size of a phosphene.
4) The elements in macaque V1 that mediate behaviors, such as classical conditioning and saccades, exhibit chronaxies similar to those that mediate phosphenes in humans. This suggests that every time stimulation induces behavioral effects from macaque V1, a visual percept is also produced; however, the chronaxies determined for human subjects were all done using surface cortical stimulation (Brindley and Lewin 1968a; Dobelle and Mladejovsky 1974; Rushton and Brindley 1978). The chronaxies for phosphene induction in humans need to be determined using depth microelectrodes. Whether these chronaxies vary across depths within V1 would be instructive, given that they do so for saccade production in monkeys (Tehovnik et al. 2003a).
5) In monkeys cathodal pulses are best at evoking saccades from the deepest layers of V1, and anodal pulses are best at evoking saccades from the upper layers (Tehovnik et al. 2003a). When electrical stimulation is delivered to the deepest layers of human V1, cathodal pulses are superior to anodal pulses for the elicitation of phosphenes (Schmidt et al. 1996). Whether cathodal and anodal pulses are differentially effective for the elicitation of phosphenes from the upper layers of human V1 needs to be investigated.
6) As trains of stimulation are delivered repeatedly to V1, the effectiveness of the stimulation for evoking a phosphene of a given brightness drops until some asymptotic level is achieved (Schmidt et al. 1996). Issues pertaining to brightness accommodation for phosphenes are important for the establishment of a stable percept when using implanted electrodes. Factors affecting response variability arising from repeated stimulation of V1 could very well be studied in monkeys as they relate to stimulation-evoked saccades and stimulation-evoked interference.
7) Saccades can be evoked for V1 using currents as low as 2 µA as long as electrical stimulation is delivered to V1 while a monkey is not actively fixating a fixation spot and as long as the stimulation trials are interleaved with nonstimulation trials in which the monkey is required to generate a saccade to the receptive-field location of the stimulated neurons for reward (Tehovnik et al. 2003a). It remains to be determined whether such saccades can be evoked electrically from V1 of humans once subjected to similar behavioral conditions. If effective, this method could be used to probe the effectiveness of electrical stimulation of human V1 in addition to traditional methods, that is, self-reports of phosphenes induced by stimulation.
8) Does blindness prevent the elicitation of dark phosphenes and can both light and dark phosphenes be evoked in sighted humans? This issue needs to be investigated further in both humans and monkeys.
9) It is known that if monkeys are retinally blind from birth, the conditioning response attributed to stimulation of V1 is transferred immediately to any other region in extrastriate cortex without additional training (Doty et al. 1980). Training is always necessary when transferring such a conditioning response between striate and extrastriate regions in retinally intact monkeys (Doty 1965, 1970). This means that early visual input is necessary to make striate and extrastriate regions functionally distinct. Just how this fact impacts phosphene induction in the blind needs to be studied.
10) How should one best train humans as well as monkeys to make visual discriminations based on a limited set of illuminated pixels, which is what the first generation of V1 prosthetics will provide? Cha et al. (1992a, b, c) found that 625 pixels (25 x 25) projected onto 1.7 x 1.7° of retina monocularly gave sighted subjects enough visual information to permit them to read at over 50% of their normal reading rate. In these studies, the stimuli were text images, which were viewed through a grid of pinholes each measuring 1.62 min of arc. Designing and testing a range of pixelized stimuli that match the range of percepts evoked electrically from V1 will need to be accomplished in both humans and monkeys.
11) Further development of high-density electrode arrays that can be permanently and safely implanted into V1 is necessary (Norman et al. 1999). Although using fine-tipped metal microelectrodes has been the most common approach, some investigators have considered going to a tetrode configuration, whereas others are working on silicon-based technologies (Jones et al. 1992; Norman et al. 1999; Tolias et al. 2001). Which of these approaches will prove to be superior for inducing phosphenes from V1 is not yet known.
In conclusion, the use of macaque monkeys to study phosphene induction from V1 should accelerate the development of a V1 prosthesis for the blind. The challenge now is to describe the range of percepts generated by electrically activating the fewest number of neurons within the various laminae and columns of V1 and to see how this corresponds to the range of percepts mediated by single cells in V1.
GRANTS
This work was supported by National Eye Institute Grant EY-08502 to P. H. Schiller.
FOOTNOTES
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: E. J. Tehovnik (E-mail: tehovnik{at}mit.edu)
REFERENCES
Albrecht DG and Hamilton DB. Striate cortex of monkey and cat: contrast response function. J Neurophysiol 48: 217–237, 1982.
Armstrong DM, Harvey RJ, and Schild RF. The spatial organization of climbing fibres branching in the cat cerebellum. Exp Brain Res 18: 40–58, 1973.[Web of Science][Medline]
Asanuma H, Arnold A, and Zarzecki P. Further study on the excitation of pyramidal tract cells by intracortical microstimulation. Exp Brain Res 26: 443–461, 1976.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bagshaw EV and Evans MH. Measurement of current spread from microelectrodes when stimulating within the nervous system. Exp Brain Res 25: 391–400, 1976.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bak M, Girvin JP, Hambrecht FT, Kufta CV, Loeb GE, and Schmidt EM. Visual sensations produced by intracortical microstimulation of the human occipital cortex. Med Biol Eng Comput 28: 257–259, 1990.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bartlett JR and Doty RW. An exploration of the ability of macaques to detect microstimulation of striate cortex. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Warsz) 40: 713–728, 1980.[Medline]
Bizzi E. Discharge of frontal eye field neurons during saccadic and following eye movements in unanesthetized monkeys. Exp Brain Res 6: 69–80, 1968.[Web of Science][Medline]
Blasdel GG and Salama G. Voltage-sensitive dyes reveal a modular organization in monkey striate cortex. Nature 321: 579–585, 1986.[CrossRef][Medline]
Boch R. Behavioral modulation of neuronal activity in monkey striate cortex: excitation in the absence of active fixation. Exp Brain Res 64: 610–614, 1986.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bradley DC, Troyk PR, Berg JA, Bak M, Cogan S, Erickson R, Kufta C, Mascaro M, McCreery D, Schmidt EM, Towle VL, and Xu H. Visuotopic mapping through a multichannel stimulating implant in primate V1. J Neurophysiol In press.
Brindley GS. Sensory effects of electrical stimulation of the visual and paravisual cortex in man. In: Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Central Processing of Visual Information, edited by Autrum H, Jung J, Loewenstein WR, MacKay DM, and Teuber HL. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1972, vol. 7/3, pt. B, p. 583–594.
Brindley GS and Lewin WS. The sensations produced by electrical stimulation of visual cortex. J Physiol 196: 479–493, 1968a.
Brindley GS and Lewin WS. The visual sensation produced by electrical stimulation of the medial occipital cortex. J Physiol 194: 54–55, 1968b.[Medline]
Burman DD and Bruce CJ. Suppression of task-related saccades by electrical stimulation in the primate frontal eye fields. J Neurophysiol 77: 2252–2267, 1997.
Button J and Putnam T. Visual responses to cortical stimulation in the blind. J Iowa Med Soc LII 1: 17–21, 1962.
Cha K, Horch KW, and Norman RA. Simulation of a phosphene-based visual field: visual acuity in a pixelized visual system. Ann Biomed Eng 20: 439–449, 1992a.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cha K, Horch KW, and Norman RA. Mobility performance with a pixelized visual system. Vision Res 32: 1367–1372, 1992b.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cha K, Horch KW, Normann RA, and Boman DK. Reading speed with a pixelized visual system. J Opt Soc Am A 9: 673–677, 1992c.[Web of Science][Medline]
Chung S and Ferster D. Strength and orientation tuning of the thalamic input to simple cells revealed by electrically evoked cortical suppression. Neuron 20: 1177–1189, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Clendenin M, Ekerot C-F, Oscarsson O, and Rosen I. The lateral reticular nucleus in the cat. I. Mossy fibres distribution in cerebellar cortex. Exp Brain Res 21: 473–486, 1974.[Web of Science][Medline]
Cragg BG. The density of synapses and neurons in the motor and visual areas of the cerebral cortex. J Anat 101: 639–654, 1967.[Web of Science][Medline]
Dagnelie G, Spekreijse H, and van Dijk B. Topography and homogeneity of monkey V1 studied through subdurally recorded pattern-evoked potentials. Vis Neurosci 3: 509–525, 1989.[Web of Science][Medline]
Daniel PM and Whitterridge D. The representation of the visual field on the cerebral cortex in monkeys. J Physiol 159: 203–221, 1961.
DeYoe EA. An Investigation in the Awake Macaque of the Threshold for Detection of Electrical Currents Applied to Striate Cortex: Psychophysical Properties and Laminar Differences (PhD Thesis). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, 1983, p. 1–158.
Dobelle WH and Mladejovsky MG. Phosphenes produced by electrical stimulation of human occipital cortex, and their application to the development of a prosthesis for the blind. J Physiol 243: 553–576, 1974.
Dobelle WH, Mladejovsky MG, Evans JR, Roberts TS, and Girvin JP. "Braille" reading by a blind volunteer by visual cortex stimulation. Nature 259: 111–112, 1976.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dobelle WH, Mladejovsky MG, and Girvin JP. Artificial vision for the blind: electrical stimulation of visual cortex offers hope for a functional prosthesis. Science 183: 440–444, 1974.
Doty RW. Conditioned reflexes elicited by electrical stimulation of the brain in macaques. J Neurophysiol 28: 623–640, 1965.
Doty RW. Electrical stimulation of the brain in behavioral context. Ann Rev Psych 20: 289–320, 1969.[CrossRef][Medline]
Doty RW. On butterflies in the brain. In: Electrophysiology of the Central Nervous System, edited by Rusinov WS. New York: Plenum Press, 1970, p. 97–106.
Doty RW, Bartlett JR, Negrão N, Lee BB, and Overman WH. Electrophysiological studies relevant to development of visual prosthesis. NIH Contract 70–2279, 1980.
Dow BM. Functional classes of cells and their laminar distribution in monkey visual cortex. J Neurophysiol 37: 927–940, 1974.
Dow BM, Snyder AZ, Vautin RG, and Bauer R. Magnification factor and receptive field size in foveal striate cortex of the monkey. Exp Brain Res 44: 213–228, 1981.[Web of Science][Medline]
Farber SA, Bogdanov M, Marshall DL, and Tehovnik EJ. Excitability of neural elements within rat corpus striatum. J Neurosci Methods 76: 93–104, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Finlay BL, Schiller PH, and Volman SF. Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. IV. Corticotectal cells. J Neurophysiol 39: 1352–1361, 1976.
Fitzpatrick D, Lund JS, Schmechel DE, and Towles AC. Distribution of GABAergic neurons and axon terminals in the macaque striate cortex. J Comp Neurol 264: 73–91, 1987.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Foerster O. Cerebral cortex in man. Lancet 2: 309–312, 1931.
Fries W. Cortical projections to the superior colliculus in the macaque monkey: a retrograde study using horseradish peroxidase. J Comp Neurol 230: 55–76, 1984.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Gawne TJ and Martin JM. Responses of primate visual cortical neurons to stimuli presented by flash, saccade, blink, and external darkness. J Neurophysiol 88: 2178–2186, 2002.
Gouras P. Opponent-colour cells in different layers of foveal striate cortex. J Physiol 238: 583–602, 1974.
Graham J. Some topographical connections of the striate cortex with subcortical structures in macaca fascicularis. Exp Brain Res 47: 1–14, 1982.[Web of Science][Medline]
Grünbaum ASF and Sherrington CS. Observations on physiology of the cerebral cortex of some of the higher apes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 69: 206, 1901.
Grünbaum ASF and Sherrington CS. Observations on physiology of the cerebral cortex of anthropoid apes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 72: 152, 1903.
Hentall ID, Zorman G, Kansky S, and Fields HL. Relations among threshold, spike height, electrode distance, and conduction velocity in electrical stimulation of certain medullospinal neurons. J Neurophysiol 51: 968–977, 1984.
Hikosaka O and Wurtz RH. Modification of saccadic eye movements by GABA-related substances. I. Effects of muscimol and bicuculline in monkey superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 53: 266–291, 1985.
Hubel DH and Freeman DC. Projection into the visual field of ocular dominance columns in macaque monkey. Brain Res 122: 336–343, 1977.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hubel DH and Livingston MS. Color and contrast sensitivity in the lateral geniculate body and primary visual cortex of the macaque monkey. J Neurosci 10: 2223–2237, 1990.[Abstract]
Hubel DH and Wiesel TN. Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. J Physiol 195: 215–243, 1968.
Hubel DH and Wiesel TN. Laminar and columnar distribution of geniculo-cortical fibres in the macaque monkey. J Comp Neurol 146: 421–450, 1972.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hubel DH and Wiesel TN. Sequence regularity and geometry of orientation columns in the monkey striate cortex. J Comp Neurol 158: 267–294, 1974a.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hubel DH and Wiesel TN. Uniformity of monkey striate cortex: a parallel relationship between field size, scatter, and magnification factor. J Comp Neurol 158: 295–306, 1974b.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hubel DH and Wiesel TN. Functional architecture of macaque monkey visual cortex. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 198: 1–59, 1977.[Medline]
Jankowska E, Padel Y, and Tanaka R. The mode of activation of pyramidal tract cells by intracortical stimuli. J Physiol 249: 617–637, 1975.
Jankowska E and Roberts WJ. An electrophysiological demonstration of the axonal projections of single spinal interneurons in the cat. J Physiol 222: 597–622, 1972.
Jones KE, Campbell PK, and Normann RA. A glass/silicon composite intracortical electrode array. Ann Biomed Eng 20: 423–437, 1992.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Keating EG and Gooley SG. Disconnection of parietal and occipital access to the saccadic oculomotor system. Exp Brain Res 70: 385–398, 1988.[Web of Science][Medline]
Keating EG, Gooley SG, Pratt SE, and Kelsey J. Removing the superior colliculus silences eye movements normally evoked from stimulation of the parietal and occipital eye fields. Brain Res 269: 145–148, 1983.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Krnjevi K, Randi M, and Straughan DW. An inhibitory process in the cerebral cortex. J Physiol 184: 16–48, 1966a.
Krnjevi K, Randi M, and Straughan DW. Nature of a cortical inhibitory process. J Physiol 184: 49–77, 1966b.
Krnjevi K, Randi M, and Straughan DW. Pharmacology of cortical inhibition. J Physiol 184: 78–105, 1966c.
Krnjevi K and Schwartz S. The action of -aminobutyric acid on cortical neurons. Exp Brain Res 3: 320–336, 1967.[Web of Science][Medline]
Lee HW, Hong SB, Seo DW, Tae WS, and Hong SC. Mapping of functional organization in human visual cortex: electrical cortical stimulation. Neurology 54: 849–854, 2000.
Lee K-M and Tehovnik EJ. Topographic distribution of fixation-related units in the dorsomedial frontal cortex of the rhesus monkey. Eur J Neurosci 7: 1005–1011, 1995.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
LeVay S, Connolly M, Houde J, and van Essen DC. The complete pattern of ocular dominance stripes in the striate cortex and visual field of macaque monkey. J Neurosci 5: 486–501, 1985.[Abstract]
LeVay S, Hubel DH, and Wiesel TN. The pattern of ocular dominance columns in macaque visual cortex revealed by a reduced silver stain. J Comp Neurol 159: 559–576, 1975.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Li CL and Bak A. Excitability characteristics of the A- and C-fibres in peripheral nerve. Exp Neurol 50: 67–79, 1976.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Livingston MS and Hubel DH. Anatomy and physiology of a color system in the primate visual cortex. J Neurosci 4: 309–356, 1984.[Abstract]
Lund JS and Boothe RG. Interlaminar connections and pyramidal neuron organization in the visual cortex, area 17 of macaque monkey. J Comp Neurol 159: 305–334, 1975.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Lund JS, Lund RD, Hendrickson AE, Bunt AH, and Fuchs AF. The origin of efferent pathways from the primary visual cortex, area 17, of the macaque monkey as shown by retrograde transport of horseradish peroxidase. J Comp Neurol 164: 287–304, 1975.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lynch JC, Mountcastle VB, Talbot WH, and Yin TCT. Parietal lobe mechanisms for directed visual attention. J Neurophysiol 40: 362–389, 1977.
Macpherson J, Wiesendanger M, Marangoz C, and Miles TS. Corticospinal neurons of the supplementary motor area of monkeys: a single unit study. Exp Brain Res 48: 81–88, 1982.[Web of Science][Medline]
Matthews G. Neural substrate for brain stimulation reward in the rat: cathodal and anodal strength-duration properties. J Comp Physiol Psych 91: 858–875, 1977.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Maynard EM. Visual prostheses. Ann Rev Biomed Eng 3: 145–168, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
McCreery DB, Agnew WF, and Bullara L. The effects of prolonged intracortical microstimulation on the excitability of pyramidal tract neurons in the cat. Ann Biomed Eng 30: 107–119, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
McCreery DB, Agnew WF, Yuen TGH, and Bullara L. Charge density and charge per phase as cofactors in neural injury induced by electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 37: 996–1001, 1990.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
McIlwain JT. Lateral spread of neural excitation during microstimulation in intermediate gray layers of cat's superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 47: 167–178, 1982.
McIlwain JT. Saccadic eye movements evoked by electrical stimulation of the cat's visual cortex. Vis Neurosci 1: 135–143, 1988.[Web of Science][Medline]
McIntrye CC, and Grill WM. Selective microstimulation of central nervous system neurons. Ann Biomed Eng 28: 219–233, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Michael RC. Columnar organization of color cells in monkey's striate cortex. J Neurophysiol 46: 587–604, 1981.
Miller JM and Glickstein M. Neural circuits involved in visuomotor reaction time in monkeys. J Neurophysiol 30: 399–414, 1967.[Web of Science]
Milner PM and Laferriere A. Behavioral measurement of axonal thresholds. Behav Brain Res 22: 217–226, 1986.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Montero VM. The interneuronal nature of GABAergic neurons in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the rhesus monkey: a combined HRP and GABA-immunocytochemical study. Exp Brain Res 64: 617–622, 1986.
Newsome WT, Wurtz RH, Dürsteler MR, and Mikami A. Punctate chemical lesions of striate cortex in the macaque monkey: effect on visually guided saccades. Exp Brain Res 58: 392–399, 1985.[Web of Science][Medline]
Nichols MJ and Newsome WT. Middle temporal visual area microstimulation influences veridical judgments of motion direction. J Neurosci 22: 9530–9540, 2002.
Norman RA, Maynard EM, Rousche PJ, and Warren DJ. A neural interface for a cortical vision prosthesis. Vision Res 39: 2577–2587, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Nowak LG and Bullier J. Spread of stimulating current in the cortical grey matter of rat visual cortex studied on a new in vitro slice preparation. J Neurosci Methods 67: 237–247, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Nowak LG and Bullier J. Axons, but not cell bodies, are activated by electrical stimulation in cortical gray matter. I. Evidence from chronaxie measurements. Exp Brain Res 118: 477–488, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Nowak LG, Munk MHJ, Girard P, and Bullier J. Visual latencies in areas V1 and V2 of the macaque monkey. Vis Neurosci 12: 371–384, 1995.[Web of Science][Medline]
O'Kusky J and Colonnier M. A laminar analysis of the number of neurons, glia, and synapses in the visual cortex (area 17) of adult macaque monkeys. J Comp Neurol 210: 278–290, 1982.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Penfield W and Perot P. The brain's record of auditory and visual experience—a final summary and discussion. Brain 86: 589–696, 1963.
Peters A. Number of neurons and synapses in primary visual cortex. In: Cerebral Cortex, edited by Jones EG and Peters A. New York: Plenum Press, 1987, vol. 6, p. 267–294.
Peters A and Sethares C. Organization of pyramidal neurons in area 17 of monkey visual cortex. J Comp Neurol 306: 1–23, 1991.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Pollen DA. Some perceptual effects of electrical stimulation of the visual cortex in man. In: The Nervous System, edited by Tower DB. New York: Raven Press, 1975, vol. 2, p. 519–528.
Porter R. Focal stimulation of hypoglossal neurons in the cat. J Physiol 169: 630–640, 1963.
Pritchard RM, Heron W, and Hebb DO. Visual perception approach by the method of stabilized images. Can J Psychiatry 14: 67–77, 1960.
Ranck JB Jr. Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: a review. Brain Res 98: 417–440, 1975.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Rattay F. The basic mechanism for the electrical stimulation of the nervous system. Neuroscience 89: 335–346, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Roberts W and Smith DO. Analysis of threshold currents during microstimulation of fibres in the spinal cord. Acta Physiol Scand 89: 384–394, 1973.[Web of Science][Medline]
Robinson DA and Fuchs AF. Eye movements evoked by stimulation of the frontal eye fields. J Neurophysiol 32: 637–648, 1969.
Rockel AJ, Hiorns RW, and Powell TPS. The basic uniformity in structure of the neocortex. Brain 103: 221–244, 1980.
Ronner SF. Prosthesis-related studies on visual cortex neurons. Appl Neurophysiol 45: 18–24, 1982.[Web of Science][Medline]
Rushton DN and Brindley GS. Properties of cortical electrical phosphenes. In: Frontiers in Visual Science, edited by Cool SJ and Smith EL. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1978, p. 574–593.
Salzman CD, Britten KH, and Newsome WT. Cortical microstimulation influences perceptual judgments of motion direction. Nature 346: 174–177, 1990.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schäfer EA. Experiments on the electrical excitation of the cerebral cortex in the monkey. Brain 11: 1–6, 1888.
Schiller PH. The role of the monkey superior colliculus in eye movements and vision. Invest Ophthalmol 11: 451–459, 1972.
Schiller PH. The effect of superior colliculus ablation on saccades elicited by cortical stimulation. Brain Res 122: 154–156, 1977.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Schiller PH. The superior colliculus and visual function. In: Handbook of Physiology. The Nervous System. Sensory Processes. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1984, sect. 1, vol. III, pt. 1, p. 457–505.
Schiller PH. The on and off channels of the visual system. Trends Neurosci 15: 86–92, 1992.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Schiller PH. The ON and OFF channels of the mammalian visual system. Prog Retinal Eye Res 15: 173–195, 1996.
Schiller PH, Finlay BL, and Volman SF. Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. I. Spatiotemporal organization of receptive fields. J Neurophysiol 39: 1288–1319, 1976a.
Schiller PH, Finlay BL, and Volman SF. Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. II. Orientation specificity and ocular dominance. J Neurophysiol 39: 1320–1333, 1976b.
Schiller PH, Finlay BL, and Volman SF. Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. II. Spatial frequency. J Neurophysiol 39: 1334–1351, 1976c.
Schiller PH and Malpeli JP. Shock-induced inhibition in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the rhesus monkey. Brain Res 137: 387–389, 1977.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Schiller PH and Tehovnik EJ. Look and see: how the brain moves your eyes about. Prog Brain Res 134: 127–142, 2001.[Web of Science][Medline]
Schiller PH and Tehovnik EJ. Cortical inhibitory circuits in eye-movement generation. Eur J Neurosci 18: 3127–3133, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Schmidt EM, Bak MJ, Hambrecht FT, Kufta CV, O'Rourke DK, and Vallabhanath P. Feasibility of a visual prosthesis for the blind based on intracortical microstimulation of the visual cortex. Brain 119: 507–522, 1996.
Schwartz EL. Computational studies of the spatial architecture of primate visual cortex: columns, maps, and protomaps. In: Cerebral Cortex, edited by Peters A and Rockland KS. New York: Plenum Press, 1994, vol. 10, p. 359–411.
Sclar G, Maunsell JHR, and Lennie P. Coding of image contrast in central visual pathways. Vision Res 30: 1–10, 1990.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Slocum WM and Tehovnik EJ. Microstimulation of V1 input layers disrupts the selection and detection of visual targets by monkeys. Eur J Neurosci 20: 1674–1680, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Spatz WB, Tigges J, and Tigges M. Subcortical projections, cortical associations, and some intrinsic interlaminar connections of the striate cortex in the squire monkey (Saimiri). J Comp Neurol 140: 155–173, 1970.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Stoney SD Jr, Thompson WD, and Asanuma H. Excitation of pyramidal tract cells by intracortical microstimulation: effective extent of stimulating current. J Neurophysiol 31: 659–669, 1968.
Supèr H, van der Togt C, Spekreijse H, and Lamme VAF. Correspondence of presaccadic activity in the monkey primary visual cortex with saccadic eye movements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 3230–3235, 2004.
Tehovnik EJ. Electrical stimulation of neural tissue to evoke behavioural responses. J Neurosci Methods 65: 1–17, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ and Lee KM. The dorsomedial frontal cortex of the rhesus monkey. Topographic representation of saccades evoked by electrical stimulation. Exp Brain Res 96: 430–442, 1993.[Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ, Lee KM, and Schiller PH. Stimulation-evoked saccades from the dorsomedial frontal cortex of the rhesus monkey following lesions of the frontal eye fields and the superior colliculus. Exp Brain Res 98: 179–190, 1994.[Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ and Slocum WM. Microstimulation of macaque V1 disrupts target selection: effects of stimulation polarity. Exp Brain Res 148: 233–237, 2003a.[Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ and Slocum WM. Using ocular dominance to infer the depth of the visual input layers of V1 in behaving macaque monkey. J Neurosci Methods 125: 121–128, 2003b.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ and Slocum WM. Behavioural state affects saccades elicited electrically from neocortex. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 28: 13–25, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ, Slocum WM, and Carvey CE. Behavioural state affects saccadic eye movements evoked by microstimulation of striate cortex. Eur J Neurosci 18: 969–979, 2003b.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ, Slocum WM, and Schiller PH. Differential effects of laminar stimulation of V1 cortex on target selection by macaque monkeys. Eur J Neurosci 16: 751–760, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ, Slocum WM, and Schiller PH. Saccadic eye movements evoked by microstimulation of striate cortex. Eur J Neurosci 17: 870–878, 2003a.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ, Slocum WM, and Schiller PH. Microstimulation of V1 delays the execution of visually guided saccades. Eur J Neurosci 20: 264–272, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tehovnik EJ and Sommer MA. Electrically evoked saccades from the dorsomedial frontal cortex and frontal eye fields: a parametric evaluation reveals differences between areas. Exp Brain Res 117: 369–378, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tolhurst DJ. The amount of information transmitted about contrast by neurons in the cat's visual cortex. Vis Neurosci 2: 409–313, 1989.[Web of Science][Medline]
Tolhurst DJ, Movshon JA, and Thompson ID. The dependence of response amplitude and variance of cat visual cortical neurons on stimulus contrast. Exp Brain Res 41: 414–419, 1981.[Web of Science][Medline]
Tolias AS, Augath M, Pauls J, Oeltermann A, Tehovnik EJ, Schiller PH, and Logothetis NK. Simultaneous electrical microstimulation and fMRI in the macaque. Soc Neurosci Abstr 69.2, 2003.
Tolias AS, Siapas AG, Smirnakis SM, and Logothetis NK. Studying networks of neurons: recordings with multiple, adjustable, chronically implanted tetrodes in the awake macaque. Soc Neurosci Abstr 123.5, 2001.
Tootell RBH, Hamilton SL, Silverman MS, and Switkes E. Functional anatomy of macaque striate cortex. I. Ocular dominance, binocular interactions, and baseline conditions. J Neurosci 8: 1500–1530, 1988a.[Abstract]
Tootell RBH, Silverman MS, Hamilton SL, De Valois RL, and Switkes E. Functional anatomy of monkey striate cortex. III. Color. J Neurosci 8: 1569–1593, 1988c.[Abstract]
Tootell RBH, Switkes E, Silverman MS, and Hamilton SL. Functional anatomy of macaque striate cortex. II. Retinotopic organization. J Neurosci 8: 1531–1568, 1988b.[Abstract]
Troyk P, Bak M, Berg J, Bradley D, Cogan S, Erickson R, Kufta C, McCreery D, Schmidt E, and Towle V. A model for intracortical visual prosthesis research. Artif Organs 27: 1005–1015, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Ts'o DC and Gilbert C. The organization of chromatic and spatial interactions in the primate striate cortex. J Neurosci 8: 1712–1727, 1988.[Abstract]
Van Essen DC, Newsome WT, and Maunsell JHR. The visual field representation in striate cortex of the macaque monkey: asymmetries, anisotropies, and individual variability. Vision Res 24: 429–448, 1984.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Vogels R and Orban GA. Activity of inferior temporal neurons during orientation discrimination with successively presented gratings. J Neurophysiol 71: 1428–1451, 1994.
Vogt-Weisenhorn DM, Illing R-B, and Spatz WB. Morphology and connections of neurons in area 17 projecting to the extrastriate areas MT and 19DM and to the superior colliculus in the monkey Callithrix jacchus. J Comp Neurol 36: 234–255, 1995.[CrossRef]
Wagman IH. Eye movements induced by electrical stimulation of cerebrum in monkeys and their relationship to bodily movements, In: The Oculomotor System, edited by Bender MB. New York: Harper & Row, 1964, p. 18–39.
Wagman IH, Krieger HP, and Bender MB. Eye movements elicited by surface and depth stimulation of the occipital lobe of Macacca mulatta. J Comp Neurol 109: 169–212, 1958.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Walker EA and Weaver TA. Ocular movements from the occipital lobe in the monkey. J Neurophysiol 3: 353–357, 1940.
Ward R and Weiskrantz L. Impaired discrimination following polarization of striate cortex. Exp Brain Res 9: 346–356, 1969.[Web of Science][Medline]
West DC and Wolstencroft JH. Strength-duration characteristics of myelinated and non-myelinated bulbospinal axons in the cat spinal cord. J Physiol 337: 37–50, 1983.
Wiesel TN, Hubel DH, and Lam DMK. Autoradiographic demonstration of ocular dominance in the monkey striate cortex by means of transneuronal transport. Brain Res 79: 273–279, 1974.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Wurtz RH and Mohler CW. Enhancement of visual responses in monkey striate cortex and frontal eye fields. J Neurophysiol 39: 766–772, 1976.
Wurtz RH, Sommer MA, Paré M, and Ferraina S. Signal transformations from cerebral cortex to superior colliculus for the generation of saccades. Vision Res 41: 3399–3412, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Yeomans JS. Principles of Brain Stimulation. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1990.
Yeomans JS, Mercouris N, and Ellard C. Behaviorally measured refractory periods are lengthened by reducing electrode tip exposure or raising current. Behav Neurosci 99: 913–928, 1985.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Yoshida, K. Takaura, R. Kato, T. Ikeda, and T. Isa Striate Cortical Lesions Affect Deliberate Decision and Control of Saccade: Implication for Blindsight J. Neurosci., October 15, 2008; 28(42): 10517 - 10530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Kawasaki and D. L. Sheinberg Learning to Recognize Visual Objects With Microstimulation in Inferior Temporal Cortex J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2008; 100(1): 197 - 211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. K. Elsley, B. Nagy, S. L. Cushing, and B. D. Corneil Widespread Presaccadic Recruitment of Neck Muscles by Stimulation of the Primate Frontal Eye Fields J Neurophysiol, September 1, 2007; 98(3): 1333 - 1354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. J. Tehovnik and W. M. Slocum What Delay Fields Tell Us About Striate Cortex J Neurophysiol, August 1, 2007; 98(2): 559 - 576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. J. Ilg and S. Schumann Primate Area MST-l Is Involved in the Generation of Goal-Directed Eye and Hand Movements J Neurophysiol, January 1, 2007; 97(1): 761 - 771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Cavanaugh, B. D. Alvarez, and R. H. Wurtz Enhanced performance with brain stimulation: attentional shift or visual cue? J. Neurosci., November 1, 2006; 26(44): 11347 - 11358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. J. Tehovnik, A. S. Tolias, F. Sultan, W. M. Slocum, and N. K. Logothetis Direct and Indirect Activation of Cortical Neurons by Electrical Microstimulation J Neurophysiol, August 1, 2006; 96(2): 512 - 521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. L. Chen and M. M. G. Walton Head Movement Evoked By Electrical Stimulation in the Supplementary Eye Field of the Rhesus Monkey J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2005; 94(6): 4502 - 4519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Bartlett, E. A. DeYoe, R. W. Doty, B. B. Lee, J. D. Lewine, N. Negrao, and W. H. Overman Jr Psychophysics of Electrical Stimulation of Striate Cortex in Macaques J Neurophysiol, November 1, 2005; 94(5): 3430 - 3442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. DeYoe, J. D. Lewine, and R. W. Doty Laminar Variation in Threshold for Detection of Electrical Excitation of Striate Cortex by Macaques J Neurophysiol, November 1, 2005; 94(5): 3443 - 3450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
