PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

P Lennie

Publications and source records attributed to P Lennie.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Chromatic adaptation to natural and incandescent illuminants.

A color CRT image display system was used to present adapting backgrounds that were spatially and temporally varied. Three observers adjusted the chromaticity of test stimuli to produce an achromatic appearance under a variety of adapting conditions. The achromatic-appearing chromaticities were used as measures of the observers' states of chromatic adaptation. The spatial configuration of the adapting background was varied to measure the spatial extent of the mechanisms responsible for chromatic adaptation. The temporal configuration of the adapting background was varied to measure the time-course of these mechanisms. The results show that chromatic adaptation is spatially localized with a time-course on the order of 10 sec. Since the mechanisms were shown to be spatially localized, the observed temporal integration across eye movements is required to allow these mechanisms to adjust to the spatially integrated scene chromaticity.

Adaptation, Ocular↗
PubMed1979

The mechanism of peripherally evoked responses in retinal ganglion cells.

1. Responses to stimulation of retinal regions remote from the classical receptive field were recorded from optic tract fibres in lightly anaesthetized cats. 2. X- and Y-cells gave reliably different responses to the sudden reversal of the phase of a high contrast grating that fell on the retina more than 15 deg from the centre of the receptive field. 3. The mechanism that generates these responses ('shift effect' or 'periphery effect') in Y-cells is insensitive to the spatial phase of the stimulating grating. It can resolve gratings of higher spatial frequency than can be resolved by the classical receptive field mechanisms of Y-cells but its temporal resolution is poorer. 4. Signals that contribute to peripherally evoked responses are accumulated over a region that extends to at least 35 deg from the centre of the receptive field. Although this region is not uniformly sensitive, regions in the periphery of the visual field are as effective as regions around the area centralis in eliciting the responses, and do not require coarser gratings. 5. In some Y-cells the response to peripheral stimulation was amplified by increasing (on-centre units) or decreasing (off-centre units) the steady illumination of the centre of the receptive field. This confirms Krüger & Fisher (1973), but the effect is only found in a proportion of cells. 6. The mechanism that generates peripherally evoked responses is tentatively identified with the 'rectifying subunits' postulated by Hochstein & Shapley (1976b) to account for the spatial non-linearity in the receptive fields of Y-cells. Transient (bistratified) amacrine cells are known to have many of the properties attributed to these mechanisms (Chan & Naka, 1976).

Animals↗
PubMed1977

The effects of remote retinal stimulation on the responses of cat retinal ganglion cells.

1. Action potentials were recorded from optic nerve fibres of lightly anaesthetized cats while parts of the retina remote from the receptive field were stimulated by a shifting grating. 2. Vigorous responses can be obtained under these conditions, confirming McIlwain (1966), Krüger & Fischer (1973), and others. 3. These 'shift responses' are not caused by fluctuations of stray light because (a) they cannot be reduced by deliberately increasing or decreasing the light falling on the receptive field synchronously with the shifting grating; (b) a steady adapting light applied to the receptive field does not raise the threshold for the responses, whereas adapting light on the peripheral retina does, and (c) the threshold for the responses is elevated more following bleaching adaptation of the periphery than following bleaching adaptation of the centre. 4. Shift responses are strong, of short latency, and brief in duration in brisk-transient (Y-type) neurones. With few exceptions they are weak but long-lasting in brisk-sustained (X-type) neurones. 5. Shift responses are unlike responses from the main receptive field in having a distinct threshold; the magnitude of the response to weak gratings is not simply proportional to contrast, as is the case with weak stimuli applied to the receptive field. 6. It is thought that the excitatory pathway may involve amacrine cells, and that this mechanism may be concerned with the detection of the shifts of the image that occur with saccadic eye movements.

Action Potentials↗
PubMed1977

Cone signals in the cat's retina.

1. The discharges of ganglion cells in the cat's retina were recorded under conditions intended to isolate the cone system.2. Stiles' two-colour threshold technique permitted the photopic system to be studied when at its highest sensitivity. The absolute sensitivity of a ganglion cell, expressed in equivalent photons of lambda(max) at the cornea per impulse discharged, was about 2500 times less when driven by cones than when driven by rods. This ratio improves to around 200 when allowance is made for the much smaller fraction absorbed by cones of photons incident on the cornea.3. The number of extra impulses discharged in response to a brief flash was approximately proportional to the number of photons in the flash, up to a limit.4. There was a region in the middle of the receptive field within which the area of a test spot and its illumination for threshold varied inversely. A flash extending over the peripheral part of the receptive field raised threshold above its minimum, presumably as a result of surround antagonism. Assessed from area-threshold curves, the balance of centre-surround antagonism in the photopic receptive field did not seem to depend upon background illumination.5. The threshold for a small (0.2 degrees ) flash confined to the middle of the receptive field was independent of background illumination until the background exceeded a particular level, the ;dark light' (I(o)). In different units this ranged about a mean of 7.89 log photons (560 nm equivalent) deg(-2) sec(-1). For backgrounds that exceeded I(o), threshold followed approximately Weber's law up to the highest illuminations that could be produced.6. With test flashes that filled the centre of the receptive field, the Weber fraction (test flash illumination/background illumination) in some units fell below 1%.7. Changes in the time course and latency of response accompanied the changes in sensitivity caused by alterations in background illumination. Responses of both X- and Y-cells became more transient and faster.8. The loss of sensitivity to a test flash brought about by a steady background light depended upon the size of that light. Sensitivity varied inversely with background area within a central region that matched closely the summing area for test flashes.

Action Potentials↗
PubMed1977

Convergence of rod and cone signals in the cat's retina.

1. In an attempt to understand the convergence of rod and cone signals in the cat's retina, ganglion cells that received inputs from both rods and cones were stimulated using lights chosen to excite one or other receptor system or both together.2. If a mesopic background was chosen to allow the ganglion cell to be excited by a blue-green test flash primarily through rods and a deep red flash primarily through cones, one light could not be alternated with the other without eliciting a response from the cell.3. This appears to be a result of the different temporal properties of the scotopic and photopic systems. On the mesopic background responses to blue-green test flashes were transient. Responses to red test flashes arose with similar latency, but were more sustained.4. Rod and cone systems responded with similar latencies in the presence of the mesopic background that substantially light-adapted the rod system but left the full sensitivity of the cone system undiminished. When equivalently light-adapted, the cone system was faster.5. When brief flashes that acted through rods were presented with flashes that acted through cones the ganglion cell's response was the sum of the responses to the two flashes presented separately, as long as the flashes were weak. This linear relation ceased to hold when flashes were strong, but the breakdown appears not to be the result of mutual inhibition between rod and cone signals.6. When a background light excited both rod and cone systems it appeared to reduce sensitivity independently in each.7. The scotopic and photopic receptive fields of a given ganglion cell always were of the same type, on- or off-centre, and, within the limits of measurement, the central regions of the receptive fields were concentric and both the same size.

Action Potentials↗
PubMed1977

Rod-cone interaction in light adaptation.

1. The increment-threshold for a small test spot in the peripheral visual field was measured against backgrounds that were red or blue.2. When the background was a large uniform field, threshold over most of the scotopic range depended exactly upon the background's effect upon rods. This confirms Flamant & Stiles (1948). But when the background was small, threshold was elevated more by a long wave-length than a short wave-length background equated for its effect on rods.3. The influence of cones was explored in a further experiment. The scotopic increment-threshold was established for a short wave-length test spot on a large, short wave-length background. Then a steady red circular patch, conspicuous to cones, but below the increment-threshold for rod vision, was added to the background. When it was small, but not when it was large, this patch substantially raised the threshold for the test.4. When a similar experiment was made using, instead of a red patch, a short wave-length one that was conspicuous in rod vision, threshold varied similarly with patch size. These results support the notion that the influence of small backgrounds arises in some size-selective mechanism that is indifferent to the receptor system in which visual signals originate. Two corollaries of this hypothesis were tested in further experiments.5. A small patch was chosen so as to lift scotopic threshold substantially above its level on a uniform field. This threshold elevation persisted for minutes after extinction of the patch, but only when the patch was small. A large patch made bright enough to elevate threshold by as much as the small one gave rise to no corresponding after-effect.6. Increment-thresholds for a small red test spot, detected through cones, followed the same course whether a large uniform background was long- or short wave-length. When the background was small, threshold upon the short wave-length one began to rise for much lower levels of background illumination, suggesting the influence of rods. This was confirmed by repeating the experiment after a strong bleach when the cones, but not rods, had fully recovered their sensitivity. Increment-thresholds upon small backgrounds of long or short wave-lengths then followed the same course.

Adaptation, Ocular↗
PubMed1975

The control of retinal ganglion cell discharge by receptive field surrounds.

1. This paper describes the behaviour of the receptive field surround, and how surround signals combine with those from the centre to generate the discharge of the retinal ganglion cells of the cat. 2. A small test spot is flashed upon the middle of the receptive field of an on-centre X-cell, alone, or together with a concentric annulus of fixed luminance. The reduction in discharge brought about by the annulus is independent of spot luminance. From this it is inferred that centre and surround signals combine additively. 3. Knowing that the combination of signals is additive, the surround signal can be estimated by comparing the ganglion cell's response to diffuse illumination of its receptive field with that to an equiluminous spot which optimally stimulates the centre while encroaching minimally upon the periphery. 4. Application of this technique to X-cells shows that although the surround seems to have a threshold, it is at its most sensitive in the dark-adapted eye, and typically is only 0.3-0.5 log units less sensitive than the centre. 5. Centre and surround sensitivities are decreased from their dark-adapted levels by increasing background illumination, but the decline of surround sensitivity is initially less rapid than that of the centre. Thus with increasing light-adaptation the surround becomes relatively more sensitive. In the light-adapted eye centre and surround are about equally sensitive to diffuse illumination. 6. Although, in the dark-adapted eye, illumination of the receptive field periphery of an on-centre unit depresses firing, removal of that illumination produces no off-discharge. Off-discharges appear only when background illumination exceeds about 104 quanta (507)/deg 2 sec. This confirms Barlow & Levick (1969b). 7. In the dark-adapted eye surround latency is longer than that of the centre. With increasing background illumination the latency difference is reduced. 8. For X-cells, the rate of the maintained discharge depends to some extent on the balance of centre-surround antagonism. But this antagonism is not the major factor accounting for the relative constancy of mean rate at high background luminances, for the rate then can be almost independent of the size of a steady pot. 9. The mean rate of discharge of Y-cells seems to depend even less upon the balance of centre-surround antagonism. 10. Y-cell surrounds could not properly be isolated with the optimal spot-diffuse illumination technique, so detailed measurements of their behaviour were not made. However, the dark-adapted surround appear to be as sensitive as those of X-cells.

Action Potentials↗
PubMed1975

Surround contribution to light adaptation in cat retinal ganglion cells.

1. The sensitivity of a cat's retinal ganglion cell to a small, dim, spot flashed upon the middle of the receptive field depends upon the size of a concentric steady background: sensitivity is reduced monotonically with background area. All backgrounds which equal or exceed in size the central summing area of the ganglion cell produce an equivalent reduction of sensitivity, even though only backgrounds which extend outside the central summing area depress the maintained discharge. 2. If a small background lies upon the middle of the receptive field, and the test spot is made intense enough to evoke a strong response, steady illumination of the periphery may make the response larger. 3. This change in response is not due to an enhancement of centre sensitivity by the surround, but is readily understood if steady illumination of the periphery adapts out the surround's antagonism of the centre's response to the test flash. 4. The failure of steady stimulation of the surround to alter centre sensitivity implies that signals from the surround subtract from, or add to, those from the centre.

Action Potentials↗