Sign in
NeuroscienceJournal of Neuroscience
Peer-reviewed journal article

Cone-opponent ganglion cells in the primate fovea tuned to non-cardinal color directions

Tyler GodatiD, Kendall Kohout, Qiang YangiD, Keith ParkinsiD, Juliette E. McGregoriD, William H. MeriganiD, David R. WilliamsiD, Sara S. PattersoniD

Abstract

A long-standing question in vision science is how the three cone photoreceptor types - long (L), medium (M) and short (S) wavelength sensitive - combine to generate our perception of color. Hue perception can be described along two opponent axes: red-green and blue-yellow. Psychophysical measurements of color appearance indicate that the cone inputs to the red-green and blue-yellow opponent axes are M vs. L+S and L vs. M+S, respectively. However, the "cardinal directions of color space" revealed by psychophysical measurements of color detection thresholds following adaptation are L vs. M and S vs. L+M. These cardinal directions match the most common cone-opponent retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) in the primate retina. Accordingly, the cone opponency necessary for color appearance is thought to be established in cortex. However, small populations with the appropriate M vs. L+S and L vs. M+S cone-opponency have been reported in large surveys of cone inputs to primate RGCs and their projections to the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), yet their existence continues to be debated. Resolving this long-standing open question is necessary because a complete account of the coneopponency in the retinal output is critical for efforts to understand how downstream neural circuits process color. Here, we performed adaptive optics calcium imaging to longitudinally, noninvasively measure foveal RGC light responses in the living macaque eye. We confirm the presence of L vs. M+S and M vs. L+S neurons with non-cardinal coneopponency and demonstrate that cone-opponent signals in the retinal output are more diverse than classically thought.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISLi '22Godat '22Wool '19Schmidt '18Schmidt '19Patterson '19
80% semantic matchNeuroscience
Peichao Li, Anupam Garg, Li A. Zhang+2 more·Nature Communications·Oct 25, 2022· 47 citations