ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2026
Orientation Maps in Mouse Superior Colliculus Explained by Population Model of Non-Orientation Selective Neurons.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mouse superficial superior colliculus (sSC) has been found to have orientation selective maps, suggesting a fundamentally different selectivity than in primate SC. Moreover, orientation selectivity in mouse sSC appears to change with stimulus properties such as size, shape, and spatial frequency, in contradistinction to the computational principle of invariance in primates. To reconcile mouse and primate mechanisms for orientation selectivity, we constructed a computational model of mouse sSC populations with circular-symmetric, center-surround (i.e., not intrinsically orientation selective), stimulus-invariant receptive fields (RFs), classically used to describe monkey lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) neurons. This model produced population maps similar to those found in mouse sSC, which show strong radial orientation preferences at retinotopic locations along stimulus edges. We show how this selectivity depended critically on spatial frequency tuning of the model units. The model predicted a shift from radial to anti-radial orientation preferences from the same simulated units at high stimulus spatial frequencies, also consistent with measurements from mouse sSC. We found intrinsically oriented RFs were largely unnecessary to explain the imaging data but could explain a possible small subpopulation of intrinsically orientation selective neurons. We conclude that to study orientation selectivity in mouse sSC and other systems, the problem is not the choice of stimulus. Rather than endless tweaks to find the perfect, unbiased stimulus, image-computable population modeling is the solution. Regardless of the stimulus presented, comparing how well models of intrinsically or non-intrinsically orientation selective units account for empirical data provides definitive evidence for underlying neural selectivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.