Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32350041›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2020

Visual Information Processing in the Ventral Division of the Mouse Lateral Geniculate Nucleus of the Thalamus.

Ulas M Ciftcioglu, Vandana Suresh, Kimberly R Ding, Friedrich T Sommer, Judith A Hirsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ulas M CiftciogluDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-2520.
Vandana SureshDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-2520.
Kimberly R DingDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-2520.
Friedrich T SommerRedwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720-3198.
Judith A HirschDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-2520 jhirsch@usc.edu.

Funding

Neural Circuits That Process Visual InformationR01EY009593 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Judith A Hirsch · 1999 to 2026
$9.2M
Building analysis tools and a theory framework for inferring principles of neural computation from multi-scale organization in brain recordingsR01EB026955 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI SOMMER, FRIEDRICH T · 2018 to 2020
$1.1M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY009593NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even though the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus (LGN) is associated with form vision, that is not its sole role. Only the dorsal portion of LGN (dLGN) projects to V1. The ventral division (vLGN) connects subcortically, sending inhibitory projections to sensorimotor structures, including the superior colliculus (SC) and regions associated with certain behavioral states, such as fear (Monavarfeshani et al., 2017; Salay et al., 2018). We combined computational, physiological, and anatomical approaches to explore visual processing in vLGN of mice of both sexes, making comparisons to dLGN and SC for perspective. Compatible with past, qualitative descriptions, the receptive fields we quantified in vLGN were larger than those in dLGN, and most cells preferred bright versus dark stimuli (Harrington, 1997). Dendritic arbors spanned the length and/or width of vLGN and were often asymmetric, positioned to collect input from large but discrete territories. By contrast, arbors in dLGN are compact (Krahe et al., 2011). Consistent with spatially coarse receptive fields in vLGN, visually evoked changes in spike timing were less precise than for dLGN and SC. Notably, however, the membrane currents and spikes of some cells in vLGN displayed gamma oscillations whose phase and strength varied with stimulus pattern, as for SC (Stitt et al., 2013). Thus, vLGN can engage its targets using oscillation-based and conventional rate codes. Finally, dark shadows activate SC and drive escape responses, whereas vLGN prefers bright stimuli. Thus, one function of long-range inhibitory projections from vLGN might be to enable movement by releasing motor targets, such as SC, from suppression.

Indexed as

AnimalsEvoked Potentials, VisualFemaleGeniculate BodiesMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLVisual PathwaysVisual PerceptioninhibitoryKey words: in vivoLGNoscillationsSCwhole cell

Identifiers

PMID32350041
PMCPMC7314416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.