Foveal and extra-foveal influences on rod hue biases

Binocular vs. monocular hue perception

Hue perception has been shown to differ for the same stimulus when presented to the temporal and the nasal areas of the retina. The present study investigated perceptual differences in stimuli viewed binocularly or monocularly in the peripheral retina to determine how hue information combines across the two retinas for a stimulus falling on the temporal retina of one eye and the nasal retina of the other. A hue-scaling procedure was utilized to ascertain hue perception for three color- and binocular-normal observers viewing monochromatic stimuli (450-670nm, 20nm steps) ranging in size from 1.0° to 3.7°. Peripherally-presented binocular stimuli fell upon the nasal retina of one eye and the temporal retina of the other. Hue-scaling results indicated that peripheral binocular hue and saturation perceptions for smaller stimuli were more similar to those of stimuli falling on the temporal retina in the monocular condition. Hue-scaling data were also used to determine perceptive field sizes for the four elemental hues. Binocular perceptive field sizes were more similar to those obtained for stimuli falling on the temporal retina in the monocular conditions. Eye dominance did not appear to have an effect on hue perception. The results seem to indicate that visual information from the temporal retina is weighted more heavily when information from the two eyes is combined cortically. This finding may relate to differences in V1 cortical activation for stimuli presented to the nasal retina versus the temporal retina.

Rod-cone crossover connectome of mammalian bipolar cells

The basis of cross-suppression between rod and cone channels has long been an enigma. Using rabbit retinal connectome RC1, we show that all cone bipolar cell (BC) classes inhibit rod BCs via amacrine cell (AC) motifs (C1-6); that all cone BC classes are themselves inhibited by AC motifs (R1-5, R25) driven by rod BCs. A sparse symmetric AC motif (CR) is presynaptic and postsynaptic to both rod and cone BCs. ON cone BCs of all classes drive inhibition of rod BCs via motif C1 wide-field GABAergic ACs (γACs) and motif C2 narrow field glycinergic ON ACs (GACs). Each rod BC receives ≈10 crossover AC synapses and each ON cone BC can target ≈10 or more rod BCs via separate AC processes. OFF cone BCs mediate monosynaptic inhibition of rod BCs via motif C3 driven by OFF γACs and GACs and disynaptic inhibition via motifs C4 and C5 driven by OFF wide-field γACs and narrow-field GACs, respectively. Motifs C4 and C5 form halos of 60-100 inhibitory synapses on proximal dendrites of AI γACs. Rod BCs inhibit surrounding arrays of cone BCs through AII GAC networks that access ON and OFF cone BC patches via motifs R1, R2, R4, R5 and a unique ON AC motif R3 that collects rod BC inputs and targets ON cone BCs. Crossover synapses for motifs C1, C4, C5, and R3 are 3-4× larger than typical feedback synapses, which may be a signature for synaptic winner-take-all switches. J. Comp. Neurol. 527:87-116, 2019. © 2016 The Authors The Journal of Comparative Neurology Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Rod hue biases for foveal stimuli on CRT displays

Signals from rod photoreceptors bias (shift) the hues determined by cone photoreceptors for extrafoveal mesopic stimuli, creating green, blue, and red rod hue biases at long, middle, and short wavelengths, respectively. The fovea contains far fewer rods and S cones but may not be immune to rod hue biases. Here, we determine the biases found for mesopic foveal stimuli presented on a CRT display. The rod green bias was observed at unique yellow for all but one observer with 2° tests and persisted for most observers with 0.5° tests. The rod red bias typically seen at unique blue in extrafoveal studies was not apparent for either size of foveal test stimulus, and it was sometimes replaced by a rod green bias. The rod blue bias typically seen at unique green and unique red in extrafoveal studies was weak on average and inconsistent for both sizes of foveal test stimuli. Thus, small mesopic foveal stimuli permit rod influence on M- and L-cone color pathways but disadvantage rod influence on S-cone pathways, perhaps because of the sparseness of foveal S-cones. However, some observers did show idiosyncratic foveal rod hue biases that do not follow the general trends.

Retinal connectomics: towards complete, accurate networks

Connectomics is a strategy for mapping complex neural networks based on high-speed automated electron optical imaging, computational assembly of neural data volumes, web-based navigational tools to explore 10(12)-10(15) byte (terabyte to petabyte) image volumes, and annotation and markup tools to convert images into rich networks with cellular metadata. These collections of network data and associated metadata, analyzed using tools from graph theory and classification theory, can be merged with classical systems theory, giving a more completely parameterized view of how biologic information processing systems are implemented in retina and brain. Networks have two separable features: topology and connection attributes. The first findings from connectomics strongly validate the idea that the topologies of complete retinal networks are far more complex than the simple schematics that emerged from classical anatomy. In particular, connectomics has permitted an aggressive refactoring of the retinal inner plexiform layer, demonstrating that network function cannot be simply inferred from stratification; exposing the complex geometric rules for inserting different cells into a shared network; revealing unexpected bidirectional signaling pathways between mammalian rod and cone systems; documenting selective feedforward systems, novel candidate signaling architectures, new coupling motifs, and the highly complex architecture of the mammalian AII amacrine cell. This is but the beginning, as the underlying principles of connectomics are readily transferrable to non-neural cell complexes and provide new contexts for assessing intercellular communication.

Rod hue biases produced on CRT displays

Studies of rod hue biases using monochromatic stimuli have shown that rod stimulation can shift the balance of hues at mesopic light levels. We found that the CRT display produced all three previously identified rod hue biases, which shifted the loci of all four unique hues at low mesopic light levels. Rod hue biases occurred at 2.6 cd/m(2) for some observers but not at 26 cd/m(2). At optimal light levels below 0.5 cd/m(2), rod hue biases varied among observers but generally (1) enhanced green versus red at unique yellow and sometimes at unique blue, (2) enhanced blue versus yellow at both unique green and unique red, and (3) enhanced red versus green at unique blue. Rod hue biases persisted for some observers even for smaller foveal stimuli.

Time course of rod influences on hue perception

Stimulation of dark-adapted rods can shift the hues associated with specific wavelengths throughout the spectrum: Rods exert a green bias (strengthen green relative to red) at longer wavelengths and a blue bias (strengthen blue relative to yellow) at short-to-middle wavelengths. A third rod influence at shorter wavelengths is more complicated because it has been shown to reverse direction with change of stimulus duration. Thus, for 30-ms stimuli, rods exert a green bias like that observed at longer wavelengths. However, for 1-s stimuli, rods exert a red bias that is observed nowhere else in the spectrum. We examined the latency (time course) of rod hue biases by measuring the shifts of the three spectral unique hues under dark-adapted versus bleached (cone plateau) conditions. The rod green bias at unique yellow (mean 10 nm) and, in contrast to some prior studies, the rod blue bias at unique green (mean 21 nm) were not systematically affected by test stimulus duration. A quick rod green bias (mean 5 nm) was shown at unique blue for two of three observers but was dominated by a slower rod red bias (mean 11 nm) after 30-50 ms of rod stimulation. These opposing rod influences may reflect competing effects of rod signals on ML-cone and S-cone pathways.