Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 291

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Temporal-frequency selectivity in monkey visual cortex

Hawken, M. J., Shapley, R. M., Grosof, D. H.·1996·Visual Neuroscience

Abstract

We investigated the dynamics of neurons in the striate cortex (V1) and the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) to study the transformation in temporal-frequency tuning between the LGN and V1. Furthermore, we compared the temporal-frequency tuning of simple with that of complex cells and direction-selective cells with nondirection-selective cells, in order to determine whether there are significant differences in temporal-frequency tuning among distinct functional classes of cells within V1. In addition, we compared the cells in the primary input layers of V1 (4a, 4cα, and 4cβ) with cells in the layers that are predominantly second and higher order (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6). We measured temporal-frequency responses to drifting sinusoidal gratings. For LGN neurons and simple cells, we used the amplitude and phase of the fundamental response. For complex cells, the elevation of impulse rate (F0) to a drifting grating was the response measure. There is significant low-pass filtering between the LGN and the input layers of V1 accompanied by a small, 3-ms increase in visual delay. There is further low-pass filtering between V1 input layers and the second- and higher-order neurons in V1. This results in an average decrease in high cutoff temporal-frequency between the LGN and V1 output layers of about 20 Hz and an increase in average visual latency of about 12–14 ms. One of the most salient results is the increased diversity of the dynamic properties seen in V1 when compared to the cells of the lateral geniculate, possibly reflecting specialization of function among cells in V1. Simple and complex cells had distributions of temporal-frequency tuning properties that were similar to each other. Direction-selective and nondirection-selective cells had similar preferred and high cutoff temporal frequencies, but direction-selective cells were almost exclusively band-pass while nondirection-selective cells distributed equally between band-pass and low-pass categories. Integration time, a measure of visual delay, was about 10 ms longer for V1 than LGN. In V1 there was a relatively broad distribution of integration times from 40–80 ms for simple cells and 60–100 ms for complex cells while in the LGN the distribution was narrower.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0952523800008154

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 291

Metadata

Authors
Hawken, M. J., Shapley, R. M., & Grosof, D. H.
Venue
Visual Neuroscience
Published
1996-05
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
477-492
ISSN
  • 0952-5238 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8714
OpenAlex
W2164589001
Cited by
291
References
3
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Temporal-frequency selectivity in monkey visual cortex. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0952523800008154
The paper
Hawken, M. J., Shapley, R. M., & Grosof, D. H. (1996). Temporal-frequency selectivity in monkey visual cortex. Visual Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952523800008154

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.