Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:34:32.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual reaction time of cats to different spatial frequencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

Bonnie E. Aiken  and
Michael S. Loop
Bonnie E. Aiken
Affiliation:
Department of Physiological Optics, School of Optometry, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Michael S. Loop
Affiliation:
Department of Physiological Optics, School of Optometry, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If physiological mechanisms similar to cat Y and X cells explain faster detection of low spatial frequencies by humans, then cats should show the same effect. We have tested this prediction by determining the visual reaction time of cats over a range of spatial frequencies and contrasts by training them to respond quickly when a vertical sine-wave grating was presented. At 50% contrast, the cat's visual reaction time increased monotonically from 0.25–2.0 cpd (cycle/deg). At every spatial frequency tested, the cat's reaction time increased monotonically as contrast decreased. By determining contrast threshold (70% detection) at each spatial frequency, it was possible to determine reaction times for different spatial frequencies at equal physical contrasts and equal “threshold equivalent” contrasts. Some of the cat's faster detection of low spatial frequencies was due to sensitivity differences and some was not. To determine if faster detection of low spatial frequencies was based upon Y cells, we took advantage of the fact that Y cells show a strong peripheral effect while X cells do not. Low and high spatial frequencies were detected in the presence of a flickering (7 Hz) or steady (70 Hz) surround. Surround frequency had no effect upon reaction times to 2.0 cpd but the flickering surround increased reaction times to 0.25 cpd. These results indicate that, in cats, rapid detection of low spatial frequencies is by Y cells and slower detection of high spatial frequencies is by X cells.

Keywords

Visual reaction timeCatX cellsY cells
Type
Research Article
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 5 , Issue 6 , December 1990 , pp. 557 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, B.E. & Loop, M.S. (1988). Visual reaction time of the cat as a function of spatial frequency. Neuroscience Abstracts 14, 1252.Google Scholar
Bolz, J., Rosner, G. & Wässle, H. (1982). Response latency of brisk-sustained (X) and brisk-transient (Y) cells in the cat retina. Journal of Physiology 328, 171–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowling, A. (1985). The effects of peripheral movement and flicker on the detection thresholds of sinusoidal gratings. Perception and Psychophysics 37, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, J.V. (1968) Distirbution-free statistical tests. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Breitmeyer, B.G. (1975). Simple reaction time as a measure of the temporal response properties of transient and sustained channels. Vision Research 15, 1411–1412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enroth-Cugell, C. & Robson, J.G. (1966). The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Physiology 187, 517–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gish, K., Shulman, G.L., Sheeny, J.B. & Leibowitz, H.W. (1986). Reaction times to different spatial frequencies as a function of detectability. Vision Research 26, 745–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammon, R.W. & Scobey, R.P. (1982). The luminance and response range of monkey retinal ganglion cells to white light. Vision Research 22, 271–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harwerth, R.S., Boltz, R.L. & Smith, E.L. (1980). Psychophysical evidence for sustained and transient channels in the monkey visual system. Vision Research 20, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruger, J. (1980). The shift effect enhances X- and suppresses Y-type response characteristics of cat retinal ganglion cells. Brain Research 201, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruger, J. (1981). The difference between X- and Y-type responses in ganglion cells of the cat's retina. Vision Research 21, 1685–1687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lennie, P. (1980). Perceptual signs of parallel pathways. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B290, 23–37.Google ScholarPubMed
Lennie, P. (1981). The physiological basis of variations in visual latency. Vision Research 21, 815–824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loop, M.S., Petuchowski, S. & Smith, D.C. (1980). Critical flicker fusion in normal and binocularly deprived cats. Vision Research 20, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupp, U., Hauske, G. & Wolf, W. (1976). Perceptual latencies to sinusoidal gratings. Vision Research 16, 979–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peichl, L. (1989). Dog retinal ganglion cells: morphological types and breed differences in topography. Neuroscience Abstracts 15, 1207.Google Scholar
Sestokas, A.K. & Lehmkuhle, S. (1986). Visual response latency of X and Y cells in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of the cat. Vision Research 26, 1041–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sestokas, A.K., Lehmkuhle, S. & Kratz, K.E. (1987). Visual latency of ganglion X and Y cells: a comparison with geniculate X and Y cells. Vision Research 27, 1399–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolhurst, D.J. (1975). Reaction times in the detection of gratings by human observers: a probabilistic mechanism. Vision Research 15, 1143–1149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed