Rapid extragranular plasticity in the absence of thalamocortical plasticity in the developing primary visual cortex

Science

Volumn 287, Issue 5460, 2000, Pages 2029-2032

  Trachtenberg, Joshua T ^a   Trepel, Christopher ^a   Stryker, Michael P ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CAT; CONTROLLED STUDY; MONOCULAR VISION; NERVE CELL PLASTICITY; NERVOUS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT; NONHUMAN; POSTNATAL DEVELOPMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THALAMOCORTICAL TRACT; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL DEPRIVATION;

ANIMALS; BRAIN MAPPING; CATS; MICROELECTRODES; NEURONAL PLASTICITY; NEURONS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; THALAMUS; VISION, BINOCULAR; VISION, MONOCULAR; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL PATHWAYS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

ANIMALIA; FELIS CATUS;

EID: 0034678057     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5460.2029     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. L. C. Katz and C. J. Shatz, Science 274, 1133 (1996).
2. M. P. Stryker, J. Physiol. 515.P, 25S (1999) (available at www.physol.org/Proceedings/Abstracts/515P/ Cardiff/Files/5201).
3. C. J. Shatz and M. P. Stryker, J. Physiol. 281, 267 (1978).
4. R. D. Freeman and C. Olson, J. Neumphysiol. 47, 139 (1982); K. D. Miller, J. B. Keller, M. P. Stryker, Science 245, 605 (1989).
5. R. D. Freeman and C. Olson, J. Neumphysiol. 47, 139 (1982); K. D. Miller, J. B. Keller, M. P. Stryker, Science 245, 605 (1989).
6. D. V. Buonomano and M. M. Merzenich, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 149 (1998).
7. E. S. Ruthazer and M. P. Stryker, J. Neurosci. 16, 7253 (1996); M. C. Crair, D. C. Gillespie, M. P. Stryker, Science 279, 566 (1998).
8. E. S. Ruthazer and M. P. Stryker, J. Neurosci. 16, 7253 (1996); M. C. Crair, D. C. Gillespie, M. P. Stryker, Science 279, 566 (1998).
9. M. C. Crair, E. S. Ruthazer, D. C. Gillespie, M. P. Stryker, Neuron 19, 307 (1997).
10. All deprivations and recordings were carried out between postnatal days 27 and 33.
11. Values for individual pixels in the OD maps were computed from each pixel of the unfiltered, blank-normalized images by comparing the response strengths to stimulation of the two eyes at the orientation producing the greatest response. This procedure is similar to that used to determine OD in single-unit recordings, where the responses to optimal stimuli in the two eyes are compared. It is different from the conventional OD ratio maps, which compare the average, rather than the optimal, responses.
12. D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel, J. Physiol. 160, 106 (1962).
13. Comparison of single-unit and optical imaging data in the deprived animals demonstrates that the optical signals reflected a large contribution from activity in layer IV. This is consistent with the reduced thickness of the upper layers at the crown of the gyrus and the scant myelination of the cortex at this age, leading to little light scatter, as well as with the narrow depth of field of the tandem lens optical system focused within layer IV at a depth of 400 μm, leading to a more than sixfold reduction in the contrast of structures the size of OD columns in the upper 100 μm of cortex. D. Malonek et al. (22) report a 25% contribution from a depth of 800 μm in monkey cortex with similar imaging optics; the layer IV contribution to the optical signal in our experiments would be expected to be at least two times as great.
14. The OD of single units was assessed on the conventional 1-to-7 scale of (10). Classification of OD was done blind; that is, one experimenter who was unable to observe the animal because of an interposed screen classified cells as binocular (OD = 4), one category off center in favor of the first or second eye (OD = 3 or 5), two off center (OD = 2 or 6), or an extreme (OD = 1 or 7). Manipulation of the individual eye shutters was performed by the second experimenter, who also recorded the OD rating provided by the first experimenter.
15. 2(n - 1) statistic had four degrees of freedom. This adjustment was made because we recorded neither cells in extreme OD categories during control experiments nor closed-eye dominant cells from experimental animals.
16. T An MI of O suggests that all individual cells are driven equally by both eyes, whereas an MI of 1 suggests that all cells are driven exclusively by one eye or the other. These indices are similar to those described in (23).
17. C. Olson and R. D. Freeman, J. Neurophysiol. 38, 26 (1975); J. A. Movshon and M. R. Dursteler, J. Neurophysiol. 40, 1255 (1977).
18. C. Olson and R. D. Freeman, J. Neurophysiol. 38, 26 (1975); J. A. Movshon and M. R. Dursteler, J. Neurophysiol. 40, 1255 (1977).
19. N. W. Daw, K. Fox, H. Sato, D. Czeptia, J. Neurophysiol. 67, 197 (1992).
20. M. E. Diamond, W. Huang, F. F. Ebner, Science 265, 1885 (1994). This somatic sensory cortical phenomenon differs from that found here in that it lacks a critical period, is not the first stage of an anatomical reorganization, and represents an increase in response strength rather than a loss of response.
21. D. E. Mitchell, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B Biol. Sci. 333, 51 (1991).
22. C. D. Gilbert and T. N. Wiesel, Nature 280, 120 (1979).
23. C. D. Gilbert, Physiol. Rev. 78, 467 (1998).
24. D. O. Hebb, The Organization of Behavior. A Neuropsychological Theory (Wiley, New York, 1949); G. Hess, C. D. Aizenman, J. P. Donoghue, J. Neurophysiol. 75, 1765 (1996); D. F. Friedman, G. Hess, J. P. Donoghue, M. S. Rioult-Pedotti, Nature Neurosci. 1, 230 (1998); S. Löwel and W. Singer, Science 255, 209 (1992).
25. D. O. Hebb, The Organization of Behavior. A Neuropsychological Theory (Wiley, New York, 1949); G. Hess, C. D. Aizenman, J. P. Donoghue, J. Neurophysiol. 75, 1765 (1996); D. F. Friedman, G. Hess, J. P. Donoghue, M. S. Rioult-Pedotti, Nature Neurosci. 1, 230 (1998); S. Löwel and W. Singer, Science 255, 209 (1992).
26. D. O. Hebb, The Organization of Behavior. A Neuropsychological Theory (Wiley, New York, 1949); G. Hess, C. D. Aizenman, J. P. Donoghue, J. Neurophysiol. 75, 1765 (1996); D. F. Friedman, G. Hess, J. P. Donoghue, M. S. Rioult-Pedotti, Nature Neurosci. 1, 230 (1998); S. Löwel and W. Singer, Science 255, 209 (1992).
27. D. O. Hebb, The Organization of Behavior. A Neuropsychological Theory (Wiley, New York, 1949); G. Hess, C. D. Aizenman, J. P. Donoghue, J. Neurophysiol. 75, 1765 (1996); D. F. Friedman, G. Hess, J. P. Donoghue, M. S. Rioult-Pedotti, Nature Neurosci. 1, 230 (1998); S. Löwel and W. Singer, Science 255, 209 (1992).
28. D. Malonek, D. Shoham, E. Ratzlaff, A. Grinvald, paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, St. Louis, MO, 28 October 1990.
29. H. Reiter and M. P. Stryker, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 85, 3623 (1986).
30. Supported by NIH grant R37-EY02874 to M.P.S., a National Research Service Award (EY06824) to J.T.T., and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Fight for Sight (research division of Prevent Blindness America) postdoctoral fellowships to C.T.