Bernal S D_2010.pdf - University of Plymouth

1.2. HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK
« 70 U M TO im >KI 1» 1M IN
ailinuhji oMnUllw I')
w
fW
C-w [JO'CI
- CoomgEIO'C)
ConMT'Wet ConMi'Wtc
Figure 2.6: a) Evidence showing Ihe inaclivalion of poslero-lemporal visual (PTV) cortex reduces
VI response. The graph shows the peak response rales ol' ihe same cell
oblained for dilTcreni orieniaiions before cooling, during cooling and -^ 30 mins
after rewarming ITV coriex. Note that despite a dramatic reduction in the magnitude
of responses during cooling, there is an excellent recovery of ihe magnitude
of responses after rewarming the VIV cortex (Huang el ai. 2007). b) Enhancement
of MT mtKluiaies VI respttnse lo visual stimulaiioii, T!ie visual response magnitude
is enhanced in the MT ceil (lop graph) via a small Loniuphoretic current of ihe
GABAB receptor aniagimisl CGP, Enhancement of MT feedback evoked eiiher an
increase (bouom-righi graph) or decrease (boiiom-left graph) of the response in
VI cells lo the same stimulus driving the MT cell. All graphs show ihe magnitude
for the control condition (black bar labeled Con), during MT stimulation (green
bar labeled MT) and after recovery (black bar labeled Hec) (Sillilo el al. 2006).
30