ライフサイエンスコーパス: opponency

1 sign as L and M cone inputs (i.e., no color opponency).

2 gnal required for computing green-blue color opponency.

3 h the midget cell surround and all chromatic opponency.

4 d postsynaptic inhibition as sources of cone opponency.

5 as inferior retina contained cells with weak opponency.

6 selectivity is established by radial motion opponency.

7 sign, and both horizontal cell types lacked opponency.

8 ena such as lateral inhibition and chromatic opponency.

9 led by retinal circuits to create wavelength opponency?

10 one cone system (20 of 83) or lacked spatial opponency (15 of 83).

11 ed to generate the inhibitory surround, lack opponency and cannot contribute selective L- or M-cone i

12 We know the neural basis for colour opponency and colour contrast, and recent studies have n

13 arks of both color and form processing (cone opponency and orientation selectivity), and many display

14 n based on simulation of photoreceptor color opponency and visual cortex simple and complex cells.

15 cal neural circuit components-rectification, opponency, and filtering-can combine to produce selectiv

16 Surprisingly, this cone opponency appears to arise by dual excitatory cone bipol

17 Thus, red-green opponency appears to arise via outer retinal horizontal

18 Red-green (L versus M cone) opponency appears to be mediated largely by the segregat

19 edicts that spatially coincident blue-yellow opponency arises at the level of the cone output via exp

20 dendritic tree and show that L versus M cone opponency arises presynaptic to the midget cell and is t

21 ing" the ITD sensitivity of MSO cells by the opponency between depolarizing sodium currents and hyper

22 standing circuit-level mechanisms underlying opponency between innate behaviors, with implications fo

23 This implies that the opponency between L and M is balanced and argues that th

24 was substantial variability in the degree of opponency between recording sites, the monkey and human

25 nce of action requires an enriched notion of opponency between reward and punishment.

26 s with experimental evidence showing spatial opponency between, and similar orientation tuning of, th

27 parvocellular neurons with pronounced colour opponency, chromatic responses were, on average, less va

28 ating that this system displays a behavioral opponency consistent with neural inhibition.

29 nt, an organization of spatial and chromatic opponency critical for color constancy and color contras

30 both schemes are capable of producing colour opponency due to the fact that receptive field centres r

31 The apparent decline in S/M opponency from superior to inferior retina is consistent

32 This radial motion opponency generates a balance of excitation and inhibiti

33 Cells lacking spatial opponency had smaller receptive fields (0.5-0.7 degrees)

34 Red-green spectral opponency has long been linked to the midget ganglion ce

35 There was strong motion opponency in a secondary visual cortical area known as t

36 To determine whether the level of opponency in human and monkey are comparable, a variant

37 nt cell types, paves the way for engineering opponency in neurons that mediate opposing functions.

38 T+), but there was little evidence of motion opponency in primary visual cortex.

39 s center-surround receptive fields and color opponency in the retina.

40 eptors in macaque monkey, that "blue-yellow" opponency is already present in the center-surround rece

41 Red-green spectral opponency is consistent with random connections in centr

42 ved the controversial issue of how chromatic opponency is constructed at a neuronal level.

43 Blue-yellow (S versus L+M cone) opponency is mediated by a growing family of low-density

44 The circuitry for spectral opponency is now being investigated using an in vitro pr

45 However, the synaptic origin of red-green opponency is unknown, and conflicting evidence for eithe

46 Spectral opponency is well established in primate retinal ganglio

47 lls in colour vision and suggest that colour opponency may instead be conveyed by a different type of

48 e temporal responsiveness of L-M and S-(L+M) opponency mechanisms.

49 dea that they are largely determined by cone-opponency mechanisms.

50 Thus, departing from the opponency model, our results support a beneficial role o

51 a robust class of models that rely on ocular opponency neurons, previously proposed as a mechanism fo

52 en spectral tuning peaks (allowing the color opponency of the visual system to distinguish between pe

53 ells, but the retinal circuitry creating the opponency remains uncertain.

54 an clock display the cone-dependent spectral opponency required to make use of this information.

55 driven by the ON channel and that chromatic opponency results from M-cone-driven surround inhibition

56 glion cells suggests that red-green spectral opponency results when connections segregate input from

57 For blue versus yellow opponency, the antagonism is first evident at a ganglion

58 In accordance with cone-based colour opponency, the giant cells project to the lateral genicu

59 tput neurons of the retina, exhibit spectral opponency; they are excited by some wavelengths and inhi

60 tinctive functional characteristic-chromatic opponency (ultraviolet excitatory, green inhibitory).

61 We tested for a neuronal correlate of motion opponency using functional magnetic resonance imaging (f

62 ncy with morphology; nor is it known whether opponency varies with the opsin gradients.

63 contained cells with strong S+/M- and M+/S- opponency, whereas inferior retina contained cells with

64 no direct evidence links this physiological opponency with morphology; nor is it known whether oppon

65 uggest a revised model of dopamine-serotonin opponency with potential clinical implications.

66 crease from horizontal to ganglion cell, and opponency would remain strong in peripheral retina.