Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 495

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Responses to visual stimulation and relationship between visual, auditory, and somatosensory inputs in mouse superior colliculus

Drager, U. C., Hubel, D. H.·1975·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

The superior colliculus was studied in anesthetized mice by recording from single cells and from unit clusters. The topographic representation of the visual filed was similar to what has been found in other mammals, with the temporal part of the contralateral visual field projecting posteriorly and the inferior visual field projecting laterally. At the anterior margin of the tectum receptive fields recorded through the contralateral eye and invaded the ipsilateral visual hemifield for up to 35 degrees, suggesting that the entire visual field through one eye is represented on the contralateral superior colliculus. Cells located closest to the tectal surface had relatively small receptive fields, averaging 9 degrees in center diameter; field sizes increased steadily with depth. The prevailing cell type in the stratum zonal and superficial gray responded best to a small dark or light object of any shape moved slowly through the receptive-field center or to turning a small stationary spot on or off. Large objects or diffuse light were usually much less effective. Less than one-quarter of superficial layer cells showed directional selectivity to a moving object, the majority of these favoring up and nasal movement. The chief visual cell type in the stratum opticum and upper part of the intermediate gray resembled in the newness neurons described for many other vertebrates: they had large receptive fields and responded best to up and nasal movement of a small dark or light object, whose optimal size was similar to the optimum for upper-layer cells. If the same part of the receptive field was repeatedly stimulated there was a marked tendency to habituate. Only very few cels responded to the ipsilateral eye. Intermixed with visual cells in the upper part of the intermediate gray were cells that responded to somatosensory or auditory stimuli. Here bimodal and trimodal cells were also seen. In deeper layers somatosensory and auditory modalities tended to take over. These two modalities were not segregated into sublayers but rather seemed to be arranged in clusters. Responses to somatosensory and auditory stimuli were brisk, showing little habituation to repeated stimulation.

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 · 10.1152/jn.1975.38.3.690

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 495

Metadata

Authors
Drager, U. C., & Hubel, D. H.
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
1975-05-01
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
690-713
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W1891398114
Cited by
495
References
0
FWCI
41.57
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: Responses to visual stimulation and relationship between visual, auditory, and somatosensory inputs in mouse superior colliculus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/jn.1975.38.3.690
The paper
Drager, U. C., & Hubel, D. H. (1975). Responses to visual stimulation and relationship between visual, auditory, and somatosensory inputs in mouse superior colliculus. Journal of Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1975.38.3.690

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.