Response properties of striate cortex neurons in cats raised with divergent or convergent strabismus.

Publications // Ronald Kalil // Sep 01 1984

PubMed ID: 6481442

Author(s): Kalil RE, Spear PD, Langsetmo A. Response properties of striate cortex neurons in cats raised with divergent or convergent strabismus. J Neurophysiol. 1984 Sep;52(3):514-37.

Journal: Journal Of Neurophysiology, Volume 52, Issue 3, Sep 1984

Recordings were made from striate cortex in five groups of cats that had been raised with strabismus produced by sectioning the extraocular muscles. These groups included animals reared with exotropia, unilateral or bilateral esotropia, and esotropia combined with lid suture of the unoperated eye. In addition, a group of esotropes was studied in which the unoperated eye was removed a few hours prior to recording. For comparison, five normal adult cats were also studied. In each of the above groups, cells were sampled in the representations of the central and peripheral visual fields in area 17 ipsilateral and contralateral to the deviated eye. We mapped the receptive field of each responsive cell, determined its ocularity, and tested it for selectivity. Confirming previous work, we found a marked loss of cortical binocularity in cats raised with strabismus. On average only 7% of the neurons that we recorded could be driven by both eyes. This percentage was relatively constant at all cortical locations that were studied and was not influenced by whether cats had been reared with exotropia, unilateral esotropia, or bilateral esotropia. The percentage of selective cells driven by the deviated eye in exotropes or esotropes did not appear to be different from normal at most cortical locations (but see 5, below). In addition, we did not observe any bias in the axial preference of selective cells in strabismic cats when compared with normal adult cats. In both exotropes and esotropes the deviated eye drove fewer cells when compared with the proportion that are driven by one eye in normal cats. In exotropes this deficit did not vary at different cortical representations of the visual field. In esotropes, however, this deficit was graded, being least in the representation of the peripheral visual field in area 17 contralateral to the deviated eye, intermediate in the representations of the central visual field in the contralateral and ipsilateral hemispheres, and greatest in the representation of the peripheral visual field in ipsilateral area 17. Furthermore, only when recording from the peripheral field representation in the ipsilateral hemisphere did we encounter significant numbers of cells driven by the deviated eye that lacked normal selectivity. Since it is possible that deprivation of the converged eye during development might account for the deficits noted above, we attempted to evaluate this factor using several independent lines of evidence. First, we could find no correlation between the angle of esotropia and the ability of the deviated eye to drive ipsilateral cortical cells representing the peripheral visual field.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)