Modulation of responses elicited by moving bars within the classical receptive fields (CRF) of cat area 17 neurons were studied as a function of the direction and velocity of drifting gratings in the surrounds. Several different types of modulation were observed; collectively, the responses of most cells, both simple and complex, were strongly modulated by surround motion. None of these cells appear to signal relative velocity between the CRF and its surround. The gain and spatiotemporal structure of the CRF mechanism were estimated using contrast-response functions and reverse correlation with spatiotemporal ternary white noise, respectively. These measurements were made in the presence of surround gratings shown to significantly modify responses elicited from the CRF. In all cases, the gain of the CRF mechanism was driven up or down relative to controls but the receptive-field structure did not change in any way. We conclude that neurons in cat area 17 act like scalable filters, meaning that their gains can be adjusted by stimuli in the surrounds without altering the properties of the CRF. This was verified by showing that velocity tuning curves were also unmodified by stimuli in the surround that did change the gain. Based in part on these data, we discuss the notion that primary visual cortex makes use of a double-opponent mechanism for the representation of local discontinuities in motion and orientation.

Cells in area V1 of the anesthetized macaque monkey were stimulated with large texture patterns composed of homogeneous regions of line elements (texels) with different orientations. To human observers, such patterns appear to segregate, with the percept of sharp boundaries between texture regions. Our objective was to investigate whether the boundaries are reflected in the responses of single cells in V1. We measured responses to individual texels at different distances from the texture border. For each cell, patterns of optimally or orthogonally orientated texels were adjusted so that only one texel fell into the receptive field and all other texels fell in the visually unresponsive regions outside. In 37 out of 156 neurons tested (24%), texels immediately adjacent to a texture border evoked reliably larger responses than identical texels farther away from the border. In 17 neurons (11%), responses to texels near the border were relatively reduced. Border enhancement effects were generally stronger than border attenuation effects. When tested with four different border configurations (two global orientations and two edge polarities), many cells showed reliable effects for only one or two configurations, consistent with cells encoding information about the orientation of the texture border or its location with respect to the segmented region. Across the sample, enhancement effects were similar for all texture borders. Modulation by the texture surround was predominantly suppressive; even the responses near texture borders were smaller than those to a single line. We compared these results with the results of a popout test in which the line in the receptive field was surrounded by homogeneous texture fields either orthogonal or parallel to the center line. The patterns of response modulation and the temporal onset of differential responses were similar in the two tests, suggesting that the two perceptual phenomena are mediated by similar neural mechanisms.

Responses of striate neurons to line textures were investigated in anesthetized and paralyzed adult cats. Light bars centered over the excitatory receptive field (RF) were presented with different texture surrounds composed of many similar bars. In two test series, responses of 169 neurons to textures with orientation contrast (surrounding bars orthogonal to the center bar) or motion contrast (surrounding bars moving opposite to the center bar) were compared to the responses to the corresponding uniform texture conditions (all lines parallel, coherent motion) and to the center bar alone. In the majority of neurons center bar responses were suppressed by the texture surrounds. Two main effects were found. Some neurons were generally suppressed by either texture surround. Other neurons were less suppressed by texture displaying orientation or motion (i.e. feature) contrast than by the respective uniform texture, so that their responses to orientation or motion contrast appeared to be relatively enhanced (preference for feature contrast). General suppression was obtained in 33% of neurons tested for orientation and in 19% of neurons tested for motion. Preference for orientation or motion contrast was obtained in 22% and 34% of the neurons, respectively, and was also seen in the mean response of the population. One hundred nineteen neurons were studied in both orientation and motion tests. General suppression was correlated across the orientation and motion dimension, but not preference for feature contrast. We also distinguished modulatory effects from end-zones and flanks using butterfly-configured texture patterns. Both regions contributed to the generally suppressive effects. Preference for orientation or motion contrast was not generated from either end-zones or flanks exclusively. Neurons with preference for feature contrast may form the physiological basis of the perceptual saliency of pop-out elements in line textures. If so, pop-out of motion and pop-out of orientation would be encoded in different pools of neurons at the level of striate cortex.

We studied the effects of contextual modulation in area V1 of anesthetized macaque monkeys. In 146 cells, responses to a single line over the center of the receptive field were compared with those to full texture patterns in which the center line was surrounded by similar lines at either the same orientation (uniform texture) or the orthogonal orientation (orientation contrast). On average, the responses to single lines were reduced by 42% when texture was presented in the surround. Uniform textures often produced stronger suppression (7% more, on average) so that lines with orientation contrast on average evoked larger responses than lines in uniform texture fields. This difference is correlated with perceptual differences between such stimuli, suggesting that physiological mechanisms contributing to the saliency (“popout”) of textural stimuli operate, at least to some degree, even under anesthesia. Significant response modulation by the texture surround was seen in 112 cells (77%). Fifty-three cells (36%) responded differently to the two texture patterns; response preferences for orientation contrast (35 cells; 24%) were seen more often than preferences for uniform textures (18 cells; 12%). The remaining 59 cells (40%) were similarly suppressed by both texture surrounds. Detailed analysis of texture modulation revealed two major components of surround effects: (1) fast nonspecific (“general”) suppression that occurred at about the same latency as excitatory responses and was found in all layers of striate cortex; and (2) differential response modulation that began about 60–70 ms after stimulus onset (about 15–20 ms after the onset of the excitatory response) and was less homogeneously distributed over cortical layers.