Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An intracellular analysis of the visual responses of neurones in cat visual cortex.

Open access
Douglas, R J, Martin, K A, Whitteridge, D·1991·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

1. Extracellular and intracellular recordings were made from neurones in the visual cortex of the cat in order to compare the subthreshold membrane potentials, reflecting the input to the neurone, with the output from the neurone seen as action potentials. 2. Moving bars and edges, generated under computer control, were used to stimulate the neurones. The membrane potential was digitized and averaged for a number of trials after stripping the action potentials. Comparison of extracellular and intracellular discharge patterns indicated that the intracellular impalement did not alter the neurones' properties. Input resistance of the neurone altered little during stable intracellular recordings (30 min‐2 h 50 min). 3. Intracellular recordings showed two distinct patterns of membrane potential changes during optimal visual stimulation. The patterns corresponded closely to the division of S‐type (simple) and C‐type (complex) receptive fields. Simple cells had a complex pattern of membrane potential fluctuations, involving depolarizations alternating with hyperpolarizations. Complex cells had a simple single sustained plateau of depolarization that was often followed but not preceded by a hyperpolarization. In both simple and complex cells the depolarizations led to action potential discharges. The hyperpolarizations were associated with inhibition of action potential discharge. 4. Stimulating simple cells with non‐optimal directions of motion produced little or no hyperpolarization of the membrane in most cases, despite a lack of action potential output. Directional complex cells always produced a single plateau of depolarization leading to action potential discharge in both the optimal and non‐optimal directions of motion. The directionality could not be predicted on the basis of the position of the hyperpolarizing inhibitory potentials found in the optimal direction. 5. Stimulation of simple cells with non‐optimal orientations occasionally produced slight hyperpolarizations and inhibition of action potential discharge. Complex cells, which had broader orientation tuning than simple cells, could show marked hyperpolarization for non‐optimal orientations, but this was not generally the case. 6. The data do not support models of directionality and orientation that rely solely on strong inhibitory mechanisms to produce stimulus selectivity.

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.1991.sp018730

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Douglas, R. J., Martin, K. A., & Whitteridge, D.
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1991-08
Volume
440
Issue
1
Pages
659-696
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W2054369832
Cited by
264
References
5
FWCI
15.85
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: An intracellular analysis of the visual responses of neurones in cat visual cortex. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1113/jphysiol.1991.sp018730
The paper
Douglas, R. J., Martin, K. A., & Whitteridge, D. (1991). An intracellular analysis of the visual responses of neurones in cat visual cortex. The Journal of Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1991.sp018730

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.