Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 675

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

Laminar differences in receptive field properties of cells in cat primary visual cortex

Open access
Gilbert, Charles D.·1977·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

1. Cells in area 17 of the cat visual cortex were studied with a view towards correlating receptive field properties with layering. A number of receptive field parameters were measured for all units, and nearly every unit was marked with a microlesion to determine accurately the layer in which it was found. 2. Cells were defined as simple or complex by mapping with stationary stimuli, using the criteria of Hubel & Wiesel (1962). Complex cells fell into two groups: those that showed summation for increased slit length (standard complex) and those that did not (special complex). 3. The simple cells were located in the deep part of layer 3, in layer 4, and in layer 6. This corresponds to the distribution of afferents from the dorsal layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus. In these cortical layers the simple cells differed primarily with respect to their receptive field size, cells in layer 4 having the smallest, layer 3 intermediate, and layer 6 the largest fields. Layer 4 was the only layer in which simple cells showed end‐inhibition (a reduction in response to slits extending beyond the excitatory portion of the receptive field). 4. The standard complex cells were found in all layers, but were quite scarce in layer 4. As with the simple cells, field size varied with layer: in layer 2+3 they had small to intermediate field sizes, in layer 5 intermediate, and in layer 6 very large. Layer 6 cells showed summation for slits of increased length up to very large values, and responded best when the slits were centred in the receptive field. The only standard complex cells that showed end‐inhibition were those in layer 2+3, and these were similar to the layer 4 simple cells in terms of proportion of end‐inhibited units and degree of end‐inhibition. 5. The special complex cells, originally described by Palmer & Rosenquist (1974), were found in two tiers: the upper one at the layer 3/layer 4 border and the lower one in layer 5. They were different from the standard complex cells in having a high spontaneous activity, high velocity preference, and large fields which were similar in size (at a given eccentricity) from one cell to the next. Many showed reduced response to slits of increasing length, even for slits that did not extend beyond the borders of the responsive region. 6. Cells in layer 6 (the origin of the corticogeniculate projection) were antidromically activated from the lateral geniculate nucleus. The antidromically activated units included both simple and complex cells, and they had the long receptive fields characteristic of the overall population of cells in layer 6. 7. The results showed that there are different types of simple and complex cells, and that cells in different layers have different properties. Taken together with their differences in site of projection, this demonstrates that the anatomical lamination pattern is reflected in functional differences between cells in different layers.

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 · 10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011863

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 675

Metadata

Authors
Gilbert, C. D.
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1977-06
Volume
268
Issue
2
Pages
391-421
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W2150232640
Cited by
675
References
3
FWCI
12.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Laminar differences in receptive field properties of cells in cat primary visual cortex. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011863
The paper
Gilbert, C. D. (1977). Laminar differences in receptive field properties of cells in cat primary visual cortex. The Journal of Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011863

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.