1: %
2: % manuscript.tex
3: %
4: % This file is written in RevTeX. The RevTeX package is included
5: % on this diskette is the file revtex.zip. The file psfig.sty is
6: % also required.
7: %
8: % April 8, 2002
9: %
10: % ************************************************
11:
12: %\documentstyle[array,multicol,aps,rmp,psfig]{revtex}
13: %\documentstyle[array,preprint,rmp,aps,psfig]{revtex}
14: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,rmp]{revtex4}
15:
16:
17: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
18: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
19: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
20: \usepackage{natbib}
21:
22:
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26:
27:
28: \title{\bf Ocular dominance patterns and the wire length minimization: a numerical study}
29:
30: \author{Alexei A. Koulakov and Dmitri B. Chklovskii}
31: \address{Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724}
32:
33: \date{April 8, 2002}
34:
35:
36: %\vspace{-0.5in}
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We study a mathematical model for ocular dominance patterns (ODPs) in primary visual cortex.
39: This model is based on the premise that ODP is an adaptation to minimize the length of intra-cortical wiring.
40: Thus we attempt to understand the existing ODPs by solving a wire length minimization problem.
41: We divide all the neurons into two classes: left- and right-eye dominated.
42: We find that segregation of neurons into monocular regions reduces wire length if
43: the number of connections to the neurons of the same class (intraocular) differs from the number of interocular connections.
44: The shape of the regions depends on the relative fraction of neurons in the two classes.
45: We find that if both classes are almost equally represented, the optimal ODP consists of interdigitating stripes.
46: If one class is less numerous than the other, the optimal ODP
47: consists of patches of the less abundant class surrounded by the neurons of the other class.
48: We predict that the transition from stripes to patches occurs when the fraction of neurons dominated by the underrepresented eye is about $40\%$.
49: This prediction agrees with the data in macaque and Cebus monkeys.
50: We also study the dependence of the periodicity of ODP on the parameters of our model.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: %\thispagestyle{empty}
54:
55: \maketitle
56:
57:
58: %\begin{multicols}{2}
59: %\narrowtext
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61: \section{INTRODUCTION}
62:
63:
64:
65: In the primary visual area (V1) of many mammals, most neurons respond
66: to the stimulation of two eyes unevenly: they are either right
67: or left eye dominated. In some species, right/left eye dominated
68: neurons are segregated and form a system of alternating monocular regions
69: known as the ocular dominance pattern (ODP) (Wiesel and Hubel, 1965, 1969).
70: In others, ODP is not observed (see Horton and Hocking, 1996b for a comprehensive list of species).
71: ODPs, when observed, vary significantly between different species and even between
72: different parts of V1 in the same animal.
73:
74:
75: Most modeling studies of ODP (Erwin et al., 1995; Swindale, 1996) have addressed its development.
76: They succeeded in generating ODPs of realistic appearance.
77: However, several {\em why} rather than {\em how} questions remained unanswered. For instance,
78: (1) why, from functional point of view, do the ODPs exist?
79: (2) Why do some mammalian species exhibit ODPs while others do not (Horton and Hocking, 1996b; Livingstone, 1996)?
80: (3) Why do the monocular regions have different appearance (stripes as opposed to patches) between
81: different parts of V1 within the same animal (LeVay et al., 1985)?
82:
83:
84: The question of functional significance of ODPs has been addressed
85: theoretically using the wiring economy principle
86: (Mitchison, 1991; Chklovskii, 2000).
87: The idea is that evolutionary pressure to keep the brain volume to a
88: minimum requires making the wiring (axons and dendrites) as short as
89: possible, while maintaining neuronal functional properties
90: (Cajal, 1995; Allman and Kaas, 1974; Cowey, 1979;
91: Cherniak, 1992; Young, 1992; Chklovskii et al., 2001; Koulakov and Chklovskii, 2001).
92: In many cases these functional properties are specified by
93: the rules of establishing connections between neurons, or wiring rules.
94: The problem presented by the wiring economy
95: principle is therefore to find, for given wiring rules, the spatial neuronal layout
96: that minimizes the total connection length.
97: This approach allows to understand many features in cortical maps, such as
98: orientation preference maps (Koulakov and Chklovskii, 2001),
99: as evolutionary adaptations, which minimize the total cortical volume.
100:
101:
102:
103: The goal of this study is to find the simplest model, which on one hand
104: is supported by experimental evidence, and on the other encompasses
105: most of OD phenomenology. The use of the simple model allows us
106: to explore its parameter space completely and to give answers to the set of questions above.
107: We also evaluate the dependence of the ODP period on the parameters of our model and compare it to the ODP periodicity observed in macaque monkey.
108: We find that the experimentally observed variation of the period is in agreement with the wiring economy theory.
109:
110:
111:
112:
113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
116:
117:
118:
119:
120:
121:
122: \section {MODEL AND METHODS}
123:
124:
125: \subsection{Description of the model}
126:
127: For the purposes of minimizing the cortical wiring we
128: consider only intra-cortical connections since they constitute
129: the majority of gray matter wiring (LeVay and Gilbert, 1976; Peters and Payne, 1993; Ahmed et al., 1994).
130: We therefore disregard the thalamic afferents and other extra-cortical projections.
131: In an attempt to make wiring economy argument more quantitative,
132: we propose a model describing the component of intracortical circuitry sensitive to OD.
133: The principal elements of our model are therefore the connection rules between cortical neurons.
134: To assess the sensitivity of the intracortical wiring to OD
135: we examine the connections in the cortical layer $4C\beta$, where OD
136: is most strongly pronounced. Such sensitivity has been studied
137: by Katz et al. (1989). They made three observations regarding the wiring rules:
138:
139: %\begin{itemize}
140: %\item{1}
141: {\it i)} Neurons in the layer $4C\beta$ near the interface between two OD columns arborize
142: more in home rather than in the opposite eye column. Therefore neurons
143: establish more connections with the neurons dominated by the same rather than by
144: the opposite eye.
145:
146: %\item{2}
147: {\it ii)} Axons and dendrites of these neurons have a tendency to bend away from the interface
148: between OD columns. This implies that not only they avoid penetration to the opposite OD
149: column but also they attempt to maintain sufficiently high number of connections
150: in the home column.
151:
152: %\item{3}
153: {\it iii)} Axons or dendrites penetrating through the opposite eye
154: column to the next same eye column are {\em never} observed.
155: This means that retinotopy has little effect on connections in layer $4C\beta$.
156: Indeed the neurons on the edges of two same eye columns separated
157: by one opposite eye column have on average receptive fields centered next
158: to each other. If connections in $4C\beta$ were sensitive to the retinotopic
159: coordinates, these two edges should be connected (Mitchison, 1991). However out
160: of 21 cells examined Katz et al. (1989) observed {\em none}
161: producing axons reaching the next same eye domain. The only
162: possibility for such cells to be connected is due to the overlap
163: between dendritic and axonic arbors of two cells
164: separated by more than $500$ $\mu$m.
165: Such possibility is small because of the strong repulsion of the
166: connections by the opposite eye column located between two cells (observation {\it i)}).
167:
168: %\end{itemize}
169:
170: These three observations lay the basis of our model which we now describe.
171: The elementary unit of our model mimics the columnar organization of the cortex (Mountcastle, 1957)
172: and uniformity of ODP along the direction normal to the slab.
173: The elementary unit is therefore a microcolumn, which is defined
174: as a box, spanning the cortex perpendicular to its surface,
175: whose other two dimensions are smaller than the characteristic scale of
176: ODP ($\approx 500\mu$), and yet large enough to include many neurons.
177: A possible choice of dimensions for such a microcolumn is
178: {\it thickness of cortex } $(\approx 1.5$mm $) \times 30\mu$ $\times 30\mu$, in which
179: case it includes about 310 cells in V1 (Rockel et al., 1980).
180: The microcolumn units are therefore arranged on a square lattice with 30$\mu$ period.
181:
182: Although the choice of the elementary unit size may seem
183: arbitrary, the results of our calculation are independent of the choice.
184: The size of the unit is analogous to the integration step,
185: which does not affect the value of an integral significantly if
186: chosen to be small enough.
187:
188:
189:
190: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
191: %
192: % Figure 1
193: %
194: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
195: \begin{figure}
196: %\vspace{1in}
197: \centerline{
198: %\psfig{file=fig1.ps,width=2.5in}
199: \includegraphics[width=1.5in]{fig1.ps}
200: }
201: %\vspace{0.5in}
202: \caption{
203: \protect{Our model illustrated. The units dominated by the left and right eyes are shown by the full and empty circles respectively.
204: Each unit is {\it required} to make $N_s$ connections to the units of the same OD and $N_o$ connections to the units of the opposite OD.
205: In this illustration $N_s=4$ and $N_o=2$. The connections satisfying these rules are shown for two units, right and left eye dominated.
206: Small numbers of connections are chosen for the ease of illustration; in actual implementation of the model both $N_s$ and $N_o$
207: are large (see below).}
208: \label{cr}
209: }
210: %\vspace{-0.1in}
211: \end{figure}
212:
213:
214:
215:
216: Motivated by the second observation in layer $4C\beta$ listed above, i.e. that neurons
217: maintain a fixed number of connections in the home OD column, we make the following assumption
218: about the connection rules. Each microcolumn unit must establish
219: connections with $N_s$ distinct units dominated by the same eye and $N_o$ units
220: dominated by the opposite eye. These connection rules are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{cr}.
221:
222: Only the relative values of $N_s$ and $N_o$ (rather than absolute) are important
223: because of the arbitrariness in the definition of microcolumn.
224: Thus, if a $30\times 30\mu$ microcolumn receives $N_s=10^4$ projections
225: from the same OD column and $N_o=10^3$ projections from the opposite OD column,
226: a $60\times 60\mu$ microcolumn receives four times less projections respectively, or $N_s=2.5 \cdot 10^3$ and $N_o=2.5\cdot 10^2$.
227: This is because with coarser units each projection is more effective: connecting to one
228: $60\times 60\mu$ unit implies connecting to four $30\times 30\mu$ units.
229: Both these implementations of the model produce the same OD pattern, discretized
230: in ``pixels'' of different size. The important quantity, which is invariant with respect to the
231: change of ``pixel''/microcolumn size, is the ratio between $N_s$ and $N_o$ (equal to 10 in this example).
232: This is the first parameter of our model.
233: %The first observation above implies that in macaque the ratio $N_s/N_o$ is larger than one.
234:
235:
236:
237: The second parameter of our model is the filling fraction of the units (microcolumns) dominated by the left eye afferents $f_L$ with respect to
238: the total number of units, averaged over several ODP periods.
239: This parameter is the fraction of the left eye dominated units $f_L$ by $f_L+f_R=1$.
240: For the majority of important cases $f_L=f_R=1/2$, however on the periphery of visual field one of the
241: eyes (ipsilateral) is underrepresented. Therefore, its filling fraction is
242: less than $1/2$.
243:
244:
245:
246:
247: The third observation above
248: implies that the component of connections sensitive to OD is not sensitive to
249: the retinotopy, and both numbers $N_s$ and $N_o$ do not depend on the
250: position of the receptive field of the unit. This may be due to significant
251: scatter of the receptive field of the cells within cortical column
252: on the scales of about 1mm (Hubel and Wiesel, 1974).
253: The position of the receptive field of the microcolumn is therefore
254: vaguely defined and cannot affect OD sensitive connections significantly.
255:
256:
257:
258: \subsection{Methods}
259:
260: Given these wiring rules we look for an optimal layout of the microcolumn units
261: which minimizes the total length of connections.
262: To find the layout minimizing the total wirelength
263: we employ a combination of computational and analytical techniques.
264: To make our choice of methods clear we first comment on the
265: expected properties of the solution.
266:
267: A possible solution of our model is the {\em Salt and Pepper}
268: layout in which the units dominated by right and left eyes are
269: uniformly intermixed. In this layout the units belonging
270: to different eyes are not segregated, ODP is not formed,
271: and the local values of the filling fraction are equal to $1/2$
272: (by local value we understand an average over a domain including many
273: units yet small compared to the period of ODP).
274: It should be contrasted to the case when units dominated by the same eye fill in large
275: domains i.e. form the ODP. In the latter case the local values of the filling factor of each
276: eye vary from 0 to 1. However one can imagine an intermediate
277: situation when the local filling fraction varies from $1/2-a$ to $1/2+a$,
278: where the amplitude of variation $0 < a \ll 1/2$. This corresponds to the case
279: of {\it weak segregation} into ODP. The weak segregation is
280: found in squirrel monkey where ODP has fuzzy appearance and until recently was suspected not to be formed
281: (Horton and Hocking, 1996).
282: If $a=1/2$, i.e. the local filling fraction varies from $0$ to $1$,
283: the ODP's have sharp appearance. Using the general terminology
284: from binary mixtures (cite diblock copolimer paper) we call this
285: regime the {\it strong segregation} limit.
286:
287: The methods useful in the strong segregation limit are not good
288: in the weak segregation case and vice versa. We use the
289: simulated annealing to find the optimum phases for the
290: strong and nearly strong segregation cases. Having found the optimum phase
291: in the strong segregation case to assess the period of ODP we use the
292: exact enumeration technique, which compares layouts belonging to the same phase
293: with different periods. The treatment of the weak segregation case
294: requires the use of continuous variables and is done employing the perturbation
295: theory. Below we describe these methods in more detail.
296:
297: \subsubsection{Simulated annealing}
298:
299: The parameters of Metropolis Monte-Carlo method (Metropolis et al., 1953)
300: are optimized to render most consistent results for multiple restarts.
301: We use square $20\times 20$ array of units with periodic boundary
302: conditions. The units are either left or right eye dominated.
303: At each step the algorithm attempts to change the dominance of one unit to the
304: opposite.
305: The value of the average filling fraction $f_{L0}$ is enforced by
306: adding the following term to the total connection length:
307: \begin{equation}
308: \delta L = 20.0 L \frac{(f_L-f_{L0})^2}{1/f_{L0}+1/(1-f_{L0})},
309: \end{equation}
310: where $L$ and $f_L$ are the current values of the total wirelength and average
311: filling fraction. Such term in the functional keeps the
312: current value $f_L$ close to the required value $f_{L0}$.
313:
314: To map out the phase diagram the values of $f_L$ change from
315: $0.2$ to $0.8$ in $0.02$ increments. The values of $N_s$ and $N_o$
316: satisfy the condition $N_s+N_o=30$ and are changed in unit increments,
317: i.e. have the following values: 12, 18; 13, 17; 14, 16; 15, 15; 16, 14; etc.
318: The phases at the intermediate points are taken from the nearest points,
319: where result is available.
320:
321: The Monte-Carlo temperature is gradually annealed from
322: $0.24 L/N$ to $0.008 L/N$ ($N=400$ is the total number of units)
323: in 5000 sweeps through the entire system ($20\times 20\times 5000$ steps). The resulting
324: layout is then examined and the phases visually identified.
325:
326:
327: \subsubsection{Perturbation theory}
328:
329: {\it Salt and Pepper} layout is relatively easy to study
330: due to its uniformity, and can be solved exactly (Chklovskii and Koulakov, 2000).
331: If a layout does not deviate significantly from {\it Salt and Pepper},
332: i.e. the weak segregation case takes place,
333: it can also be solved exactly. This implies that the wire length can be written
334: as an explicit functional of density distribution of the units. Such functional
335: was evaluated and optimized with respect to the density variations
336: by Chklovskii and Koulakov (2000).
337: The optimization shows that ODPs are formed for the values of
338: parameter $|N_s - N_o|/N_s > 0.02$. However the simulated annealing
339: method cannot distinguish weak segregated ODP from {\it Salt and Pepper}
340: for $|N_s - N_o|/N_s < 0.2$.
341: There are two reasons for the failure of simulated annealing to do so:
342: \begin{itemize}
343:
344: \item
345: Simulated annealing is performed at small but finite temperature
346: that destroys weakly segregated ODP.
347:
348: \item
349: The units can be either completely right or left eye dominated.
350: This implies that OD can change only sharply in the described annealing version.
351: This is useful for obtaining the strongly segregated
352: phases, which occupy major part of the parameter space.
353: However, in the weak segregation limit the local OD changes smoothly.
354: Thus used version of simulated annealing performs poorly at $N_s\approx N_o$.
355:
356: \end{itemize}
357:
358: We therefore replace the simulated annealing results by those
359: from Chklovskii and Koulakov (2000) at small values of parameter $N_s-N_o$
360: (see the phase diagram below).
361:
362:
363:
364: \subsubsection{Calculation of the ODP period.}
365: \label{exenum}
366:
367: To evaluate the period of ODP precisely, we first determine the phase
368: ({\it Salt and Pepper}, {\it Stripes}, or {\it Patches}) for the given set of parameters $N_s/N_o$
369: and $f_L$, using methods described above. We then take a lattice containing a large number of
370: units, which exceeds sufficiently the lattice used in simulated annealing. This is possible because
371: the method of determining period described below is much less time consuming than simulated annealing.
372: We then arrange the two types of units on the lattice, using ODP determined by the simulated annealing, and
373: vary the period of the pattern to find the period producing the minimum of the wire length.
374: Below we describe the procedure for both {\it Stripes} and {\it Patches} in more details.
375:
376: {\it i) Stripes}
377:
378: To find the optimum period for stripes we use an array containing 300 by 300 units.
379: This array includes three periods of the stripes, which run parallel to one of the sides of the region.
380: Each period therefore includes 100 units, containing $n_L$ left and $n_R$ right eye units, $n_L+n_R=100$.
381: By varying $n_L$ we accomplish the change in the filling fraction of the left (ipsilateral) eye, according to the
382: formula: $f_L=n_L/\left( n_L + n_R \right)$.
383: We consider a string of 100 units at the center of the
384: array, which is representative of all the units in the configuration. For each of the
385: central units the computer program establishes connections, according
386: to the connection rules. Most of the calculations are done for $N_s+N_o=300$.
387: We check that results change for different $N_s+N_o$ in a predictable fashion (see below, Results, subsection~\ref{sp}).
388: Stripes therefore have a fixed period in terms of number of units (100). To find the optimal spatial period of the
389: stripes we vary the shape of each elementary cell in the 300 by 300 array.
390: Thus, if the rectangular cell dimensions are $a_x$ perpendicular
391: and $a_y$ parallel to the stripes, we vary both $a_x$ and $a_y$, keeping the area of elementary cell
392: $a_xa_y=1$ constant. By doing so we do not change the density of units, but vary the spatial OD period,
393: according to the formula $\Lambda = 100a_x$. For each value of $a_x$ the cells are reconnected according to the
394: connection rules. Special care is taken about exclusion of the boundary effects by making sure that none of the
395: units on the edges of the array is connected to. After the optimum period is found the
396: period in terms of number of units is changed from 100 to another value, closer to the value of spatial period,
397: to check for the absence of geometric artifacts, associated with distortions of elementary cells.
398: The change of the spatial period after this procedure is typically absent but in extreme cases does not exceed 3\%.
399:
400: {\it ii) Patches}
401:
402: Since our results indicate that a triangular crystal of {\it Patches} is formed (see Fig.~\ref{phases}J),
403: we consider an array in the shape of parallelogram commensurate with the triangular arrangement of {\it Patches}.
404: The lattice sites in the array, representing units, are also arranged on a triangular lattice. Their positions are given by
405: $x(i,j)=i+j/2$ and $y(i,j) = j\sqrt{3}/2$, where $i$ and $j$ are integers varying between 1 and $5l$.
406: Here $l$ is the period of ODP to be optimized.
407: The centers of {\it Patches} are located at points $x_c{n,m}=ln+lm/2$ and $y_c(n,m)=lm\sqrt{3}/2$.
408: Each patch includes lattice sites at the distance from a center determined by the filling fraction of the
409: ipsilateral eye: $R=l\sqrt{f_L\sqrt{3}/2\pi}$. The units within/outside the patch are left/right eye dominated.
410: The units in the configuration are then represented by the central parallelogram: $i,j=(2l+1)..3l$.
411: For each of the units connections are made according to the connection rules with $N_s+N_o=300$.
412: The optimum period is obtained by varying parameter $l$.
413:
414:
415:
416:
417: \subsubsection{Fourier analysis of the ocular dominance patterns}
418: \label{fourier}
419:
420: To determine the experimental dependence of the ODP period on the filling factor,
421: the image of ODP in macaque monkey (Horton and Hocking, 1996a) is converted into a digital format.
422: In this format the image is represented by a set of pixels.
423: A pixel with coordinates $x$ and $y$ is represented by a number $s(x,y)$,
424: equal to $0$ for the right eye dominated and $1$ for the left eye dominated
425: area. For each position in the image we then determine the local value of the average filling fraction
426: of the ipsilateral eye and the value of local OD period. Both these calculations are similar.
427: To do the calculation at a certain point in the map, given by coordinates $\left(x_0,y_0\right)$,
428: we surround the corresponding pixel by a square, containing $64\times 64$ pixels
429: (black square in Fig.~\ref{monkey1}, $3.7\times 3.7$mm).
430: The dimensions of the square are such that one hand it contains a few ODP periods (about 3),
431: which is needed for averaging, and on the other hand it is small compared to the
432: characteristic dimensions over which the properties of ODP change ($\sim$ 1cm, see Fig.~\ref{monkey1}).
433: To determine the filling fraction we average the scanned image over the square:
434: for position $\left(x_0,y_0\right)$ in the map the local value of the average filling fraction is given by
435: \begin{equation}
436: f_L \left(x_0,y_0 \right) = \frac {1}{64\times 64} \sum_{x=x_0-31}^{x_0+32}
437: \sum_{y=y_0-31}^{y_0+32} s \left(x,y\right).
438: \end{equation}
439:
440:
441: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
442: %
443: % Figure 2
444: %
445: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
446: \begin{figure}
447: \centerline{
448: %\psfig{file=fig2.ps,width=3.1in}
449: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig2.ps}
450: }
451: %\vspace{0.5in}
452: \caption{
453: \protect{The image of the striate cortex of macaque monkey 1 left
454: hemisphere from Horton and Hocking (1996a).
455: The left/right eye dominated areas are shown by black/white.
456: For the pixels in the shaded area we evaluate the filling factor
457: and OD period, displayed in Fig.~\ref{fp} below. The dashed square
458: gives an example of the region containing 64 by 64 pixels,
459: for which the filling fraction and Fourier transform are calculated.
460: It has dimensions 3.7 by 3.7 mm.
461: }
462: \label{monkey1}
463: }
464: %\vspace{-0.1in}
465: \end{figure}
466:
467:
468:
469: To determine the local value of ODP period we perform the Fourier transform of the
470: $s\left(x,y\right)-f_L$ in the square. As a result we obtain a set of numbers $\tilde{s} \left(q_x, q_y\right)$,
471: representing the Fourier transform amplitudes, defined on a $64\times 64$ set of wave
472: vectors $\left(q_x, q_y\right)$. The spectral power, represented by $\left| \tilde{s} \left(q_x, q_y\right) \right|^2$,
473: is shown in Fig.~\ref{tf} for one of the points in the pattern, corresponding to {\it Stripes}.
474: It clearly has a bimodal appearance, indicating the average in the square direction of the stripes.
475: We then determine the average value of the wave vector, using the formula:
476: \begin{equation}
477: \left< q \left( x_0, y_0 \right)\right>= \frac{\sum_{q_x, q_y} \sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2} \left| \tilde{s} \left(q_x, q_y\right) \right|^2}
478: {\sum_{q_x, q_y} \left| \tilde{s} \left(q_x, q_y\right) \right|^2}.
479: \end{equation}
480:
481: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
482: %
483: % Figure 3
484: %
485: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
486: \begin{figure}
487: %\vspace{2in}
488: \centerline{
489: %\psfig{file=fig3.ps,width=3.1in}
490: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig3.ps}
491: }
492: %\vspace{0.5in}
493: \caption{
494: The spectral power for a point in the pattern occupied by stripes.
495: The spectrum has the bimodal appearance, characteristic of stripes.
496: The direction of the modes is determined by the direction in which ODP
497: changes (perpendicular to stripes). The distance of the modes from the
498: center determines the local value of ODP period by Eq.(\ref{odpp}).
499: The spectral power in the scale bar is in arbitrary units.
500: \label{tf}
501: }
502: %\vspace{-0.1in}
503: \end{figure}
504:
505:
506:
507: The value of the mean ODP period is then defined as
508: \begin{equation}
509: \Lambda \left( x_0, y_0 \right)= \frac{2\pi}
510: {\left< q \left( x_0, y_0 \right)\right>} .
511: \label{odpp}
512: \end{equation}
513: This value for each pixel in the shaded area in Fig.~\ref{monkey1} is shown in Fig.~\ref{fp}.
514:
515:
516:
517:
518:
519:
520:
521:
522:
523:
524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
527:
528:
529:
530:
531:
532:
533:
534:
535:
536:
537:
538: \section{RESULTS}
539:
540: \subsection{Small number of connections}
541: \label{qualitative}
542:
543: We start by finding optimal layouts for three illustrative examples of
544: wiring rules with small numbers of connections, $N_s$ and $N_o$. We
545: caution the reader that because of the small numbers of connections
546: phase assignments may seem arbitrary. These examples are
547: chosen to illustrate our main results which will be confirmed both in
548: the lattice model with large $N_s$ and $N_o$ later in this section and in
549: the continuous model (Chklovskii and Koulakov, 2001).
550:
551: For the first two examples we set equal numbers of left and right
552: dominated neurons, $f_L=f_R=1/2$. In the first example each neuron connects
553: with equal numbers of the same-eye and other-eye neurons,
554: $N_s=N_o=4$. Then the optimal layout is the ``chess board''
555: of left/right neurons, Fig.\ref{lat1}a. This layout is a realization
556: of the {\em Salt and Pepper} phase, Fig.\ref{phases}a, because each
557: neuron has an equal number of left and right neurons among its immediate
558: neighbors. To calculate the length of connections per neuron, $l$, we
559: notice that in this layout all neurons have the same pattern of
560: connections. By considering one of them, Fig.\ref{lat1}a, we find that
561: $l=4+4\sqrt{2}\approx 9.67$. This layout is optimal because each neuron makes all of its connections
562: with immediate neighbors.
563:
564:
565: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
566: %
567: % Figure 4
568: %
569: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
570: \begin{figure}
571: %\vspace{2in}
572: \centerline{
573: %\psfig{file=fig4.ps,width=3.1in,bbllx=100pt,bblly=338pt,bburx=464pt,bbury=491pt}
574: \includegraphics[width=3.1in,bbllx=100pt,bblly=338pt,bburx=464pt,bbury=491pt]{fig4.ps}
575: }
576: %\vspace{0.5in}
577: %\setlength{\columnwidth}{3.4in}
578: \caption{ Ocular dominance patterns for $f_L=1/2$ and
579: $N_s=N_o=4$. (a) A realization of the {\em Salt and Pepper} phase
580: gives minimal wire length (\protect{$l\approx 9.67$} lattice constants per neuron).
581: (b) A realization of the {\em Stripe} phase is suboptimal (\protect{$l\approx 10.24$}).
582: \label{lat1}
583: }
584: %\vspace{-0.1in}
585: \end{figure}
586:
587:
588:
589: A suboptimal layout for the same wiring rules is illustrated by a
590: realization of the {\em Stripe} phase, Fig.\ref{lat1}b. In this layout
591: each neuron has the same pattern of connections up to a mirror
592: reflection. By considering one of them, Fig.\ref{lat1}b, we find
593: $l=6+3\sqrt{2}\approx 10.24$, greater than $l\approx 9.67$ for the {\em
594: Salt and Pepper} phase. Here each neuron has among its immediate
595: neighbors only three other-eye neurons, while the wiring rules require
596: connecting with four other-eye neurons. A connection to a more distant
597: neighbor is longer making the layout suboptimal. We confirm
598: the optimality of the {\em Salt and Pepper} phase for $N_s=N_o$ for large $N_s$, $N_o$ both
599: numerically and analytically.
600:
601: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
602: %
603: % Figure 5
604: %
605: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
606: \begin{figure}
607: %\vspace{2in}
608: \centerline{
609: %\psfig{file=fig5.ps,width=3.1in,bbllx=100pt,bblly=338pt,bburx=464pt,bbury=491pt}
610: \includegraphics[width=3.1in,bbllx=100pt,bblly=338pt,bburx=464pt,bbury=491pt]{fig5.ps}
611: }
612: %\vspace{0.5in}
613: %\setlength{\columnwidth}{3.4in}
614: \caption{ Ocular dominance patterns for $f_L=1/2$ and
615: $N_s=5$, $N_o=3$. (a) A realization of the {\em Salt and Pepper} is
616: suboptimal (\protect{$l\approx 10.24$}). (b) A realization of the {\em Stripe} phase gives minimal
617: wire length (\protect{$l\approx 9.67$}).
618: \label{lat2}
619: }
620: %\vspace{-0.2in}
621: \end{figure}
622:
623:
624:
625: In the second example each neuron connects with more same-eye than
626: other-eye neurons: $N_s=5$, $N_o=3$. Then a realization of the {\em
627: Salt and Pepper} phase, Fig.\ref{lat2}a is not optimal anymore. The
628: length of connections per neuron is $l\approx 10.24$, while the {\em
629: Stripe} phase, Fig.\ref{lat2}b gives $l\approx 9.67$. The {\em Salt and Pepper}
630: phase loses in wiring efficiency because there are not enough same-eye
631: neurons among immediate neighbors and connections with more distant
632: neighbors are needed. The {\em Stripe} phase, Fig.\ref{lat2}b
633: rectifies this inefficiency by having each neuron make connections
634: only with immediate neighbors. Thus, clustering of same-eye neurons is
635: advantageous if each neuron connects more with the same-eye than with
636: the other-eye neurons.
637:
638: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
639: %
640: % Figure 6
641: %
642: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
643: \begin{figure}
644: %\vspace{2in}
645: \centerline{
646: %\psfig{file=fig6.ps,width=3.1in,bbllx=100pt,bblly=138pt,bburx=464pt,bbury=491pt}
647: \includegraphics[width=3.1in,bbllx=100pt,bblly=138pt,bburx=464pt,bbury=491pt]{fig6.ps}
648: }
649: %\vspace{0.5in}
650: %\setlength{\columnwidth}{3.4in}
651: \caption{ Ocular dominance patterns for $f_L=1/4$ and
652: $N_s=5$, $N_o=3$. Realizations of the (a) {\em Salt and Pepper} (\protect{$l\approx 11.26$}) and
653: (b) {\em Stripes} (\protect{$l\approx 11.49$}) are suboptimal. (c) A realization of the {\em
654: L-Patch} phase gives minimal wire length (\protect{$l\approx 10.67$}).
655: \label{lat3}
656: }
657: %\vspace{-0.2in}
658: \end{figure}
659:
660:
661: In the third example we use the same wiring rules ($N_s=5$, $N_o=3$)
662: but take different numbers of left/right neurons, $f_L=1/4$,
663: $f_R=3/4$. The realizations of the {\em Salt and Pepper} phase is
664: shown in Fig.\ref{lat3}a and of the {\em Stripe} phase in
665: Fig.\ref{lat3}b. In these layouts, different neurons have different
666: patterns of connections. To find the wiring length per neuron we
667: average over different patterns and find for the {\em Salt and Pepper}
668: phase $l\approx 11.26$ and for the {\em Stripe} phase $l\approx 11.49$. A more
669: efficient layout is the {\em L-Patch} phase, Fig.\ref{lat3}c, where
670: $l\approx 10.67$. Although we cannot prove that the {\em L-Patch}
671: phase is optimal, this seems likely. Thus, the optimal shape of
672: monocular regions depends on the relative numbers of left/right
673: neurons.
674:
675: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
676:
677:
678: \subsection{The shape of OD columns}
679: \label{PhDsection}
680:
681:
682: After giving some examples of ODPs with small numbers of connections $N_s$ and $N_o$
683: we discuss the opposite case of large numbers. As we show below in Section \ref{sp},
684: the shape of OD columns in this case does not depend on the absolute values of parameters $N_s$ and $N_o$.
685: It is determined by the ratio $N_s/N_o$ and by the relative amount of ipsilateral neurons $f_L$
686: (assuming that the left eye is ipsilateral).
687: Depending on the values of parameters $N_s/N_o$, and $f_L$, optimal layout
688: belongs to the one of the eight phases shown in Fig.~\ref{phases}, where
689: ipsilateral and contralateral-eye dominated neurons are shown by
690: black and white regions respectively.
691: These phases can be divided into three major classes.
692: The first class is represented by the unsegregated {\it Salt and Pepper} layout,
693: in which two types of neurons are uniformly intermixed (Figure~\ref{phases}A).
694: The second class includes
695: {\it Stripy} layouts, shown in Figures~\ref{phases}C, E, G, I.
696: The third class consists of {\em Patchy} layouts, displayed in Figures~\ref{phases}D, F, H, G.
697:
698: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
699: %
700: % Figure 7
701: %
702: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
703: \begin{figure}
704: %\vspace{2in}
705: \centerline{
706: %\psfig{file=fig7.ps,width=2.0in,bbllx=97pt,bblly=224pt,bburx=250pt,bbury=598pt}
707: \includegraphics[width=2.0in,bbllx=97pt,bblly=224pt,bburx=250pt,bbury=598pt]{fig7.ps}
708: }
709: %\vspace{0.5in}
710: \caption{
711: The phases obtained by perturbation theory ({\bf C} and {\bf D}) and by simulated annealing (the rest).
712: Each simulation array of 20 by 20 units in reproduced 4 times in each Figure.
713: {\protect The color bar is the key for Figure~\ref{PhD}}.
714: {\bf A}: {\it Salt and Pepper}; {\bf B}: {\it Stripes} mixed with {\it Patches};
715: {\bf C} and {\bf D}: weakly segregated {\it Stripes} and {\it Patches} obtained by the perturbation theory;
716: {\bf E} and {\bf F}: weakly segregated {\it Stripes} and {\it Patches} obtained by simulated annealing;
717: {\bf G}: modulated {\it Stripes};
718: {\bf H}: elongated {\it Patches};
719: {\bf I}: sharp {\it Stripes};
720: {\bf J}: sharp {\it Patches};
721: \label{phases}
722: }
723: %\vspace{-0.1in}
724: \end{figure}
725:
726: We distinguish several subclasses of {\it Stripy} phases. First, it is the sharp {\it Stripes} (Figure~\ref{phases}I),
727: which consists of alternating lamellar monocular regions.
728: Second, it is the weakly segregated {\it Stripes} (Figure~\ref{phases}C,E).
729: In this ODP the variation of density of left/right eye dominated neurons is small.
730: This is an intermediate pattern between the unsegregated {\it Salt an Pepper} and the sharp {\it Stripe} layouts.
731: This phase is therefore fragile and difficult to obtain numerically.
732: In some cases simulated annealing can produce such a phase, Figure~\ref{phases}E.
733: In the other cases the weak segregated phase
734: can only be obtained by the perturbation theory, which can carefully account for
735: a weak variation of neuronal density. Such case is shown in Figure~\ref{phases}C.
736: Third, we also obtain {\em Stripy} phases that show a tendency to become
737: {\em Patches}, by e.g. their longitudinal modulation, such as shown in Figure~\ref{phases}G.
738:
739: Similar subclasses exist among {\it Patchy} layouts.
740: We obtain sharp, weakly segregated (obtained from simulated annealing or perturbation theory),
741: and elongated {\it Patches}, which are shown in Figures~\ref{phases}J, F, D, and H respectively.
742: Finally, there are mixed phases containing both {\it Stripes} and {\em Patches}, such as in Figure~\ref{phases}B.
743: These ODP's are shown on the phase diagram (PD) in Figure~\ref{PhD}.
744: The phase diagram shows the optimum phase (minimizing the total wire length)
745: for given values of parameters $N_s/N_o$ and $f_L$.
746:
747: The important feature of the PD is its left-right eye symmetry.
748: It is apparent from the symmetry of Figure~\ref{PhD} with respect to the line $f_L=1/2$.
749: This is a consequence of the left-right eye symmetry of our model, implying that
750: the connection rules, defined by numbers $N_s$ and $N_o$ are independent on
751: whether a neuron is left or right-eye dominated. For this reason the
752: phase for $f_L>1/2$ can be obtained from the point with the same $N_s/N_o$ and the
753: value of the filling fraction equal to $1-f_L < 1/2$. This corresponds to the
754: replacement of the white regions in Figure~\ref{phases} by black and vice versa.
755: A similar correspondence takes place when one compares ODP's in left and right hemisphere.
756:
757: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
758: %
759: % Figure 8
760: %
761: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
762: \begin{figure}
763: %\vspace{2in}
764: \centerline{
765: %\psfig{file=fig8.eps,width=3.1in,bbllx=6pt,bblly=19pt,bburx=234pt,bbury=175pt}
766: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig8.ps}
767: }
768: %\vspace{0.5in}
769: \caption{ The phase diagram showing the optimum phase for given values of parameters {\protect $f_L$ and $N_s/N_o$}.
770: For the color key see {\protect Figure~\ref{phases}}.
771: \label{PhD}
772: }
773: %\vspace{-0.1in}
774: \end{figure}
775:
776:
777: Another important feature of the PD is the existence of the {\it Salt and Pepper} region around
778: the line $N_s/N_o=1$. This implies that the difference between $N_s$ and $N_o$ is the driving force of segregation into ODP.
779: The larger the difference, the sharper the ODP becomes.
780:
781: The area of the PD adjacent to $f_L=f_R=1/2$ is occupied by {\it Stripy} ODPs. At small values of the filling fraction
782: the phases are {\it Patchy}. A transition from {\it Stripes} to {\it Patches} occurs at $f_L \approx 0.38$ almost
783: independently on parameter $N_s/N_o$. An example of such transition for $N_s/N_o = 3$ is shown in Figure~\ref{transition}.
784:
785: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
786: %
787: % Figure 9
788: %
789: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
790: \begin{figure}
791: %\vspace{2in}
792: \centerline{
793: %\psfig{file=fig9.ps,width=3.1in,bbllx=94pt,bblly=366pt,bburx=350pt,bbury=454pt}
794: \includegraphics[width=3.1in,bbllx=94pt,bblly=366pt,bburx=350pt,bbury=454pt]{fig9.ps}
795: }
796: %\vspace{0.5in}
797: \caption{ The example of transition from {\it Patches} to {\it Stripes} at \protect{$N_s/N_o = 3$}.
798: {\bf A}, {\bf B}, and {\bf C} show the optimum phases for \protect{$f_L=0.34$, $0.36$, and $0.38$}
799: respectively.
800: \label{transition}
801: }
802: %\vspace{-0.1in}
803: \end{figure}
804:
805:
806:
807:
808: The reasons for the transition for {\em small} values of $N_s/N_o-1$ are discussed in
809: Koulakov and Chklovskii, 1999. For {\em larger}differences, when ODP becomes sharp,
810: the transition occurs due to the presence of surface contribution to the
811: wire length. To demonstrate this we present the following argument, which is rigorously valid in the asymptotic limit of large
812: number of connections to the same-eye neurons, i.e. $N_s >> N_o$.
813: In this limit connections to the same-eye neurons are the most abundant and therefore most costly, from wire length prospective.
814: Hence, we can disregard connections to the opposite-eye neurons in the first approximation.
815: Consider a unit near the interface between two OD columns (top unit in Fig.~\ref{connections}).
816: The connection arbor of this unit to the same OD units, shown by empty circles in Fig.~\ref{connections}, is strongly biased
817: toward the home column, since the unit has to maintain certain number of connections there.
818: This effect has been seen by Katz et al., 1989, in macaque striate cortex (see also the discussion in the Model Section above).
819: For units away from the interface the connection arbor within the same OD column is close to a circle (Fig.~\ref{connections} bottom unit).
820: Thus, circular arbor renders the minimum wirelength in the absence of constraints, such as the interface between OD columns.
821: With the interface present the connection arbor to the same eye neurons is therefore strongly deformed
822: with respect to the optimum. Hence, the presence of the interface between the OD columns implies an increase
823: in the wirelength, and is therefore associated with a surface cost (similar to Malsburg, 1979). This surface cost drives
824: the transition from {\it Stripes} to {\it Patches}. Indeed if
825: $f_L \ll 1/2$ the patchy phases have much shorter length of the surface compared to {\it Stripes}.
826: This is because {\it Patches} shrink when $f_L\rightarrow 0$ reducing their surface length,
827: whereas {\it Stripes} become narrower, keeping their surface length the same.
828: However, this is not true for $f_L=f_R=1/2$ where {\it Stripes}
829: have a shorter surface for numerical reasons. Therefore, when $f_L$ is decreased, the
830: {\it Stripes} should unavoidably condense into {\it Patches} to minimize the surface cost.
831: This is similar to droplets of water assuming circular shape to minimize the surface energy.
832:
833:
834:
835: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
836: %
837: % Figure 10
838: %
839: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
840: \begin{figure}
841: %\vspace{2in}
842: \centerline{
843: %\psfig{file=fig10.ps,width=3.1in,bbllx=137pt,bblly=226pt,bburx=490pt,bbury=581pt}
844: \includegraphics[width=3.1in,bbllx=137pt,bblly=226pt,bburx=490pt,bbury=581pt]{fig10.ps}
845: }
846: %\vspace{0.5in}
847: \caption{
848: Connection arbors of two units in the array: near the interface of OD columns (top) and in the center of a column (bottom).
849: The units dominated by left and right eyes are shown by squares and dots respectively.
850: Two units for which the arbors are displayed are shown by stars.
851: They are connected to other units, which are encircled.
852: The parameters for this particular layout are: \protect{$N_s=23$, $N_o=7$, $f_L=0.40$}.
853: The connection arbor of the boundary unit (top) to the units of the same OD is significantly deformed,
854: compared to the corresponding connection arbor of the unit in the middle of the column (bottom).
855: This is similar to the observation of Katz et al., (1989).
856: This deformation gives rise to the surface cost associated with formation of the interface
857: between columns.
858: \label{connections}
859: }
860: %\vspace{-0.1in}
861: \end{figure}
862:
863:
864: We conclude therefore that two important transitions occur in our model.
865: \begin{itemize}
866: \item The transition from unsegregated {\it Salt and Pepper} to weakly segregated and then
867: sharp ODP is driven by the difference between parameters $N_s$ and $N_o$ characterizing the intra-cortical circuitry.
868: \item The transition from {\it Stripy} to {\it Patchy} ODP is driven by the decreasing filling fraction
869: of the ipsilateral eye and occurs at $f_L \approx 0.4$, if left eye is underrepresented.
870: \end{itemize}
871:
872:
873:
874:
875:
876: \subsection{Transition from {\it Stripes} to {\it Patches}: comparison to experiments}
877:
878: Our phase diagram in Fig.~\ref{PhD} shows
879: that the transition from {\it Stripes} to {\it Patches} occurs when $f_L\approx 0.4$ for a wide range of $N_s/N_o$.
880: This value will be compared now with the value of $f_L$ at which the transition occurs in the experiment,
881: found from the relative area occupied by left eye dominated neurons.
882: The conclusion that the {\em Patch} phase becomes optimal when contralateral eye dominates is, indeed, non-trivial,
883: because there may be a system of alternating wide and narrow monocular stripes instead.
884:
885: We test our conclusion on the data from macaque monkey first (Horton and Hocking, 1996a).
886: The relative area occupied by the left/right eye depends on the location in V1.
887: In the parafoveal part of V1 both eyes are represented equally, i.e. $f_L\approx 0.5$.
888: ODP has a stripy appearance, in agreement with the phase diagram.
889: Away from the foveal region contralateral eye becomes dominant.
890: The ODP becomes patchy there (LeVay et. al., 1985), just as
891: expected from the theoretical phase diagram. We verify the location of the
892: transition by using the following algorithm. We find $f_L$ for each
893: point of the pattern by calculating the relative area occupied by the
894: left/right regions in a window centered on that point and a few OD
895: periods wide (dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{macaque}). Then we draw a contour
896: corresponding to $f_L=0.4$, Fig.~\ref{macaque}. We observe in Fig.~\ref{macaque} that
897: stripes indeed become patchy at the black contour indicating $f_R=0.4$.
898:
899:
900: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
901: %
902: % Figure 18
903: %
904: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
905: \begin{figure}
906: %\vspace{2in}
907: \centerline{
908: %\psfig{file=fig11.ps,width=3.1in}
909: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig18.ps}
910: }
911: %\vspace{0.5in}
912: %\setlength{\columnwidth}{3.4in}
913: \caption{Transition between the {\it Stripes}
914: and {\it Patches} occurs at theoretically predicted value
915: $f_L$. Shown is a fragment of the macaque ODP
916: from Horton and Hocking (1996a). Areas dominated by the
917: left eye are grey and neurons dominated by the left eye are white.
918: The black contour corresponds to {\protect $f_L=0.4$} averaged over a window, whose dimensions are shown by the dashed square
919: ({\protect $3.7\times 3.7$}mm).
920: The points of transition from {\em Stripes} to {\em Patches} coincides with the black contour.
921: \label{macaque}
922: }
923: %\vspace{-0.2in}
924: \end{figure}
925:
926: In {\em Cebus} monkey the ODP has a similar transition (Rosa et al., 1992).
927: For monkey CO6L from Rosa et al., 1992, we determine visually that
928: along the horizontal meridian the transition occurs at the eccentricity of
929: $20-40\deg$. According to the plot of the relative representations given
930: in Rosa et al., 1992, $f_L$ changes in the range $0.32-0.42$ at these
931: eccentricities. Our theoretical conclusion about a transition at $f_L=0.4$ falls into this interval. For
932: the upper $45$ degree meridian of the same monkey
933: the transition occurs at the eccentricity of $30-40$ degrees or at filling
934: fractions $0.33-0.43$. Again, the predicted value belongs to this
935: interval. We conclude that these data are consistent with the results of our model.
936:
937: In cats the ODPs have a patchy appearance (Anderson et al., 1988; Jones et al., 1991).
938: In this case our theory implies that one of the eyes should dominate. According to some reports
939: (Shatz and Stryker, 1978; Crier et al., 1998) the filling fraction of the
940: contralateral eye in cat V1 is about $0.8$ in young animals (before P22).
941: This may lead to {\em Patches} in cat V1.
942: The strong contralateral bias disappears in older animals (Crier et al., 1998).
943: This is consistent with other reports (Anderson et al., 1988)
944: that both eyes are represented almost equally in adult cats.
945:
946:
947: \subsection{The period of ocular dominance pattern}
948:
949:
950: \subsubsection{Scalability of the Model}
951: \label{sp}
952:
953: One of the general features of our model is that the period of OD pattern becomes larger,
954: when the total number of connections is increased. Indeed, the size of the connection arbors grows
955: if both $N_s$ and $N_o$ are increased, given that the density of units ($1/(30\mu\times 30\mu)$) is kept constant.
956: This is because one has to go further to find the necessary number of connections to satisfy the wiring rules.
957: Since dimensions of the connection arbors set up a characteristic scale for the
958: OD pattern, the period of the latter also increases. This property of our model,
959: which we call {\it scalability}, is discussed in this subsection.
960:
961: Let us define scalability in a mathematically rigorous fashion.
962: Assume that one has found a minimum wire length configuration for certain set of parameters $N_s$, $N_o$, and $f_L$ (or $f_R=1-f_L$).
963: Assume that both $N_s$ and $N_o$ are very large. In this case the dimensions of connection arbors are much larger than the
964: lattice spacing, and one can ignore the fine structure imposed on the connection arbors by the square lattice.
965: This is exactly the limit in which our model has some validity, both because realistic numbers of neuronal
966: connections are large and because we would like to avoid artifacts introduced by the square lattice.
967: An example of connection arbors for a neuron for some set of $N_s$ and $N_o$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{scalaba} (left).
968: This neuron and its connection arbors resemble the top neuron, marked by the star, in Fig.~\ref{connections}.
969: The connection arbors in Fig.~\ref{scalaba} look like continuous circular pieces,
970: due to the large $N_s$ and $N_o$ limit (square lattice makes the boundaries of connection arbors look like staircases,
971: whose steps are too small to show in the picture for large $N_s$ and $N_o$).
972: Imagine now a geometric transformation, in which the dimensions of the
973: connection arbors of all of the neurons, as well as the OD pattern itself, are blown up by the same scaling factor $\eta > 1$.
974: The two-dimensional density of the neurons must be preserved during this transformation.
975: The obtained new OD pattern and the new connection arbors are shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{scalaba} (right).
976: Since the transformation is applied to the two-dimensional objects, and each of the dimensions was
977: stretched by the factor $\eta$, each neurons in the new configuration will receive $\eta^2N_s$ and $\eta^2N_o$
978: connections from the same and opposite eye neurons. The newly obtained configuration (Fig.~\ref{scalaba} right)
979: will satisfy wiring rules with connection numbers given by $\eta^2N_s$ and $\eta^2N_o$.
980: Note that the filling fraction is not changed by this transformation.
981: It is $f_L=f_R=1/2$ in Fig.~\ref{scalaba}. Will this be the minimum wire length
982: configuration for this set of parameters?
983:
984: To prove that the new configuration minimizes the total wire length for the new set of parameters
985: $\eta^2N_s$ and $\eta^2N_o$ we notice that the total wirelength for the new configuration
986: is given by $\eta^3 L$, where $L$ is the total wirelength for the original configuration (Fig.~\ref{scalaba} left).
987: This is because each neuron now receives the number of connections increased by $\eta^2$,
988: and each connection is stretched by $\eta$. Imagine now that one finds a new configuration,
989: which has the total connection length $L'<\eta^3 L$. Let us take this more optimal configuration
990: and shrink it by the factor of $\eta$. We obtain a configuration, satisfying wiring rules for the set $N_s$ and $N_o$,
991: whose total wirelength is $L'/\eta^3 < L$. But this contradicts to our postulate that the original configuration
992: in Fig.~\ref{scalaba} (left) is optimal for the set of parameters $N_s$ and $N_o$. Thus the stretched configuration
993: provides the minimum of the wirelength for the new set of parameters $\eta^2N_s$ and $\eta^2N_o$.
994:
995: This property is important, because once the solution for given $N_s$ and $N_o$ is found, one can obtain
996: other solutions, with the set of parameters $\eta^2N_s$ and $\eta^2N_o$,
997: by stretching the original configuration by the factor of $\eta$ uniformly in all the directions.
998: The important property which remains the same for all these related configurations is the ratio between the numbers of the same and other
999: eye connections, $N_s/N_o$. Thus, we conclude that this ratio determines the shapes of the OD patterns,
1000: which is unchanged during the uniform stretching procedure.
1001:
1002: What is changed in the uniform stretching is the ODP period?
1003: Since the period is proportional to the stretching parameter $\eta$, while the total
1004: number of connections is proportional to $\eta^2$, we conclude that the period is proportional
1005: to the square root of the total number of connections, when the
1006: ratio $N_s/N_o$ is kept constant. This implies that
1007: \begin{equation}
1008: \Lambda \left( N_s, N_o, f_L \right) = D \cdot \lambda \left( N_s/N_o, f_L\right)
1009: \label{scalab_form}
1010: \end{equation}
1011: Here $D = 2 a \sqrt{\left( N_s + N_o \right) / \pi} \sim \eta$, where $a=30\mu$ is the size of the microcolumn unit.
1012: Parameter $D$ has a meaning of the average axonal arbor diameter.
1013: The quantity $\lambda(N_s/N_o, f_L)$ is the {\it normalized OD period}, calculated in the units of the average axonal diameter.
1014: This quantity is introduced here for easier comparison to the experiment.
1015: Notice that this quantity does not depend on the total number of connections.
1016: The latter dependence is entirely absorbed by the parameter $D$.
1017:
1018:
1019: Scalability is valid for the limit of large $N_s$ and $N_o$, when square lattice effects can be ignored, and our model
1020: becomes continuous. Does scalability apply to our numerical solution, described in subsection~\ref{exenum}?
1021: To check this we plot the ratio $\Lambda \left( N_s, N_o, f_L \right)/D$, obtained using methods described in~\ref{exenum},
1022: for different values of the total number of connections $N_s + N_o$ in Fig.~\ref{scalab}.
1023: If Eq.~(\ref{scalab_form}) is valid, this ratio should not depend on the total number of connections.
1024: As evident from Fig.~\ref{scalab} this property is indeed satisfied. Hence, below in this subsection
1025: we always present the results for $\lambda \left( N_s/N_o, f_L\right)= \Lambda/D$,
1026: which are independent on the total number of connections,
1027: assuming that the latter dependence can be easily recovered using Eq.~(\ref{scalab_form}).
1028:
1029:
1030:
1031: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1032: %
1033: % Figure 11
1034: %
1035: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1036: \begin{figure}
1037: %\vspace{2in}
1038: \centerline{
1039: %\psfig{file=fig12.ps,width=3.1in,bbllx=90pt,bblly=377pt,bburx=531pt,bbury=597pt}
1040: \includegraphics[width=3.1in,bbllx=90pt,bblly=377pt,bburx=531pt,bbury=597pt]{fig11.ps}
1041: }
1042: \vspace{0.5in}
1043: \caption{
1044: The original ODP and connection arbor for one of the neurons, marked by the white dot (left).
1045: Compare to Fig.~\ref{connections}, top neuron. The stretched configuration is shown on the right.
1046: \label{scalaba}
1047: }
1048: %\vspace{-0.1in}
1049: \end{figure}
1050:
1051:
1052: \subsubsection{Dependence on parameter $N_s/N_o$}
1053:
1054: We now examine the dependence of normalized period $\lambda(N_s/N_o,f_L)$ [see Eq.~(\ref{scalab_form})] on
1055: the parameter $N_s/N_o$, for $f_L=1/2$, when we have to consider the stripe phase,
1056: according to subsection~\ref{PhDsection}.
1057: The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fs}. These results have been obtained using methods described in
1058: subsection~\ref{exenum}.
1059: In general, the normalized period increases with increasing parameter $N_s/N_o$.
1060: This increase in the OD period can be understood considering the interplay between connections to the same and opposite eye units.
1061: Indeed, the presence of connections between the same eye units implies affinity between the same OD neurons.
1062: An increase in the relative number of such connections ($N_s/N_o$) strengthens such affinity.
1063: The OD columns provide a neighborhood rich with the same eye neurons; even more so, on average, for coarser domains.
1064: Thus stronger affinity between the same eye neurons ($N_s/N_o$) leads to an increase in the size of OD domains.
1065: This effect is produced by wiring economy principle, since the latter provides a substrate for the affinity of connected neurons.
1066:
1067:
1068: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1069: %
1070: % Figure 12
1071: %
1072: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1073: \begin{figure}
1074: %\vspace{2in}
1075: \centerline{
1076: %\psfig{file=fig13.ps,width=3.1in}
1077: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig12.ps}
1078: }
1079: %\vspace{0.5in}
1080: \caption{
1081: The independence of the ratio \protect{$\Lambda/D$ [see Eq.(\ref{scalab_form})]} on the
1082: total number of connections. This implies that the lattice effects, violating scalability,
1083: are insignificant. The data are obtained for \protect{$f_L=1/2$}. Circles, triangles, and
1084: diamonds show results for \protect{$N_s/N_o$} equal to 4/3, 17/3, and 14 respectively.
1085: \label{scalab}
1086: }
1087: %\vspace{-0.1in}
1088: \end{figure}
1089:
1090:
1091:
1092:
1093:
1094: We now examine Fig.~\ref{fs} in more detail. The relative period diverges in the limit $N_s>>N_o$.
1095: The divergence can be described by the asymptotic formula
1096: \begin{equation}
1097: \lambda(N_s/N_o, f_L=1/2) \approx 0.8 \sqrt{\frac{N_s}{N_o}}
1098: \label{asymp_p}
1099: \end{equation}
1100: shown in Fig.~\ref{fs} by the dotted curve. The divergence can be understood as follows.
1101: Imagine that the neurons do not have to connect to the neurons of the opposite OD, i.e.
1102: parameter $N_o=0$, $N_s\neq 0$, which corresponds to the extreme case $N_s>>N_o$.
1103: In this case the optimum wire length configuration consists of only two large domains, dominated
1104: by left and right eye neurons, occupying a half of V1 each. This is because of the notion of surface
1105: contribution, introduced in subsection~\ref{PhDsection}. To minimize this interface contribution
1106: the system phase segregates into two large domains.
1107: Thus, in the case $N_o=0$ ODP has maximum possible period, spanning the entire V1.
1108: This explains the tendency of the period diverge in the limit $N_o\neq 0$ ($N_s/N_o=\infty$) in Fig.~\ref{fs}.
1109: What happens if $N_o\neq 0$? Since the neurons now have to connect to the opposite eye
1110: neurons, phase segregated configuration (two large domains spanning the entire V1) is no longer optimum.
1111: The system introduces more interfaces between OD columns
1112: to shorten distances between opposite eye neurons. More interfaces implies a reduction in the OD period.
1113: Thus, finite $N_s/N_o$ leads to the finite OD period. This is reflected by the
1114: asymptotic dependence (\ref{asymp_p}) and the dotted curve in Fig.~\ref{fs}.
1115:
1116: An interesting phenomenon observed in Fig.~\ref{fs} is the presence of a few discontinuous changes
1117: in the OD period. One such a change occurs at $N_s/N_o \approx 1.15$ and consists in an abrupt
1118: increase in the OD period by a factor of about $2.3$. Another discontinuous transition occurs at $N_s/N_o \approx 1.20$
1119: and the corresponding increase in the period is by a factor of $2$. Note that these transitions are truly discontinuous,
1120: i.e. they occur at discrete points. They appear smooth in Fig.\ref{fs} due to a sparse sampling
1121: (the real data points are shown by dots). Note also that the quantity $D$ in Eq.~(\ref{scalab_form}) changes negligibly in the
1122: interval between $N_s/N_o=1.1$ and $1.2$, which implies that both OD period $\Lambda$ and the normalized period $\lambda$ change approximately
1123: by the same factor. Such discontinuous changes in the OD period in the weakly segregated regime, i.e.
1124: when the ODP is not well defined, may be responsible for the coarsening of ODP in strabismic squirrel monkeys
1125: (see Discussion for more details).
1126:
1127:
1128:
1129:
1130:
1131:
1132:
1133:
1134: \subsubsection{Dependence on the filling fraction}
1135:
1136: The dependence of the normalized period $\lambda(N_s/N_o, f_L)$ on the filling fraction of the left eye $f_L$ is shown in
1137: Fig.~\ref{fr}. These results have been obtained using methods described in
1138: subsection~\ref{exenum}. Four dependencies are shown, for four values of the parameter $N_s/N_o$ marked on each curve.
1139: The general tendency for the period to grow with increasing parameter $N_s/N_o$, described in the previous
1140: subsection, is evident in the Figure.
1141:
1142: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1143: %
1144: % Figure 13
1145: %
1146: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1147: \begin{figure}
1148: %\vspace{2in}
1149: \centerline{
1150: %\psfig{file=fig14.eps,width=3.1in}
1151: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig13.ps}
1152: }
1153: %\vspace{0.5in}
1154: \caption{
1155: Dependence of the normalized OD period, defined in \protect{Eq.~(\ref{scalab_form})}, on the parameter \protect{$N_s/N_o$}.
1156: The data points are shown by dots connected by lines. The dotted curve shows the asymptotic fit obtained for the values
1157: of parameters \protect{$N_s/N_o >> 1$ [Eq.(\ref{asymp_p})]}. Two horizontal dotted lines show the
1158: plateau values of the period separated by discontinuous transitions at \protect{$N_s/N_o \approx 1.15$ and $1.20$}.
1159: \label{fs}
1160: }
1161: %\vspace{-0.1in}
1162: \end{figure}
1163:
1164:
1165: For small values of parameter $N_s/N_o$ the period increases when the filling fraction moves away from
1166: $f_L=1/2$, as long as one stays within the same phase ({\it Stripes} or {\it Patches}).
1167: This behavior is seen for the two bottom curves in Fig.~\ref{fr}.
1168: In the transitional region between {\it Stripes} and {\it Patches} the OD period
1169: experiences a discontinuity, marked by the dotted lines. For large values of $N_s/N_o$,
1170: the dependence of the period on $f_L$ is opposite: the period decreases, as the filling factor
1171: deviates from $1/2$, as demonstrated by the top curve in Fig.~\ref{fr}.
1172:
1173:
1174: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1175: %
1176: % Figure 14
1177: %
1178: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1179: \begin{figure}
1180: %\vspace{2in}
1181: \centerline{
1182: %\psfig{file=fig15.eps,width=3.1in}
1183: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig14.ps}
1184: }
1185: %\vspace{0.5in}
1186: \caption{
1187: \protect{The normalized OD period $\lambda$ as a function of the filling fraction of one of the eyes.
1188: Four dependencies are shown for the values of parameter $N_s/N_o$ equal to $2$, $3$, $5$, and $11$ correspondingly.
1189: The central segment of the dependencies, between $f_L=0.4$ and $0.6$ corresponds to the
1190: {\it Stripe} phase. The dependencies in the regions between $0.2\leq f_L \leq 0.35$
1191: and $0.65 \leq f_L \leq 0.8$ have been calculated for {\it Patches}, as indicated in the
1192: Figure. In the regions of transition between {\it Stripes} and {\it Pathes} the curves are
1193: connected by dotted lines.
1194: }
1195: \label{fr}
1196: }
1197: %\vspace{-0.1in}
1198: \end{figure}
1199:
1200:
1201: We now compare this behavior of our model to the observations in the striate cortex of macaque monkey (Horton and Hocking, 1996a),
1202: using Fourier transform method described in subsection~\ref{fourier}. To make this comparison possible
1203: the following technical consideration is taken into account. The Fourier transform method
1204: evaluates the average value of the spatial frequency of the ODP $\left< Q \right>$.
1205: The OD period is then calculated by the formula $\Lambda = 2\pi / \left< Q \right>$.
1206: For the {\it Stripe} phase this procedure results in the value, which is close to the
1207: period of stripes. For {\it Patches} it results in the distance between rows of patches,
1208: which is smaller than the period by the factor $\sqrt{3}/2\approx 0.87$ (see Fig.~\ref{rows}). Thus, to make comparison
1209: to the experiment possible, the values in Fig.~\ref{fr} corresponding to {\it Patches} should be multiplied by the
1210: factor $0.87$. The result of this procedure is shown in Fig.~\ref{fp} by the gray line.
1211:
1212: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1213: %
1214: % Figure 15
1215: %
1216: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1217: \begin{figure}
1218: %\vspace{2in}
1219: \centerline{
1220: %\psfig{file=fig16.ps,width=2.5in}
1221: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig15.ps}
1222: }
1223: %\vspace{0.5in}
1224: \caption{
1225: For {\it Patches} Fourier transform produces distance between rows, rather then the period of the OD pattern.
1226: The distance between rows is a natural successor of the period of {\it Stripes} after the transition
1227: to {\it Patches} occurs (see also Fig.~\ref{transition}). The distinction between {\it Patch} period and
1228: distance between rows should be taken into account for accurate comparison to the experimental observations.
1229: \label{rows}
1230: }
1231: %\vspace{-0.1in}
1232: \end{figure}
1233:
1234:
1235:
1236: Fig.~\ref{fp} shows that the period observed in the experiment decreases when
1237: the filling factor of the ipsilateral eye deviates from $1/2$. This warrants the use of
1238: the top curve in Fig.~\ref{fr} to represent the theoretical result.
1239: Since, the shape of the theoretical dependence does not change much
1240: when $N_s/N_o > 10$, the parameter $N_s/N_o$ cannot be established from the
1241: comparison of the theory to the experiment.
1242: To obtain the gray curve in Fig.~\ref{fp} the $N_s/N_o=11$
1243: dependence in Fig.~\ref{fr} was multiplied by the fitting parameter
1244: $D=0.46$mm. This is the only fitting parameter used.
1245: As seen in Fig.~\ref{fp}, our theory describes the experimentally
1246: observed dependence quite well.
1247:
1248:
1249:
1250:
1251: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1252: %
1253: % Figure 16
1254: %
1255: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1256: \begin{figure}
1257: %\vspace{2in}
1258: \centerline{
1259: %\psfig{file=fig17.ps,width=3.1in}
1260: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig16.ps}
1261: }
1262: %\vspace{0.5in}
1263: \caption{
1264: Comparison of the OD period observed in the experiment (Horton and Hocking, 1996a)
1265: in macaque striate cortex (dots) to the results of our theory (gray curve).
1266: The former is obtained using Fourier transform method described in subsection~\ref{fourier}.
1267: The latter is the top curve in Fig.~\ref{fr}, with the sector of the data corresponding to {\it Patches}
1268: corrected by the factor \protect{$\sqrt{3}/2\approx 0.87$} for compatibility with the Fourier transform.
1269: The only fitting parameter used is $D=0.46$mm [see Eq.~(\ref{scalab_form})].
1270: \label{fp}
1271: }
1272: %\vspace{-0.1in}
1273: \end{figure}
1274:
1275:
1276:
1277:
1278:
1279: The widths of the ipsilateral and contralateral eye stripes in macaques has also been
1280: measured independently by Tychsen and Burkhalter (1997).
1281: Based on their results one can evaluate the ODP period and the filling fraction:
1282: \begin {equation}
1283: \Lambda = W_I+W_C,\ \ \ f_{ipsi} = W_I/\left( W_I+W_C \right).
1284: \end{equation}
1285: Here $f_{ipsi}$, $W_I$, and $W_C$ are the filling fraction of the ipsilateral eye, and the ipsilateral/contralateral
1286: column widths respectively. The dependence of the period on the filling fraction can therefore be established.
1287: This dependence is shown in Fig.\ref{tychsen}.
1288:
1289:
1290: The best parabolic fit to the data in Fig.\ref{tychsen} is given by:
1291: \begin{equation}
1292: \Lambda(f)=\Lambda(1/2)\left[ 1-\alpha \left( f_{ipsi}-1/2 \right)^2\right].
1293: \end{equation}
1294: The coefficient $\alpha = -6.94\pm 6.38$ is estimated using bootstrap (Efron and Tibshirani, 1993).
1295: The expectation value of the coefficient is therefore below zero, as
1296: seen from Fig.\ref{tychsen}. The probability of the coefficient to
1297: be greater than zero is $p=0.11$ as evaluated by bootstrap procedure, which is
1298: used since the distribution of coefficients $\alpha$ is non-gaussian.
1299: This implies that with great degree of certainty one can assume that the period of ODP
1300: does decrease with the filling fraction deviating from $1/2$.
1301:
1302: It should be noted that the value of coefficient $\alpha$ can be obscured by the variability of ODP period between different individuals,
1303: since data in Fig.\ref{tychsen} are assembled from three monkeys (four V1's). To reduce the impact of inter-individual variability
1304: we then normalized the period for each area V1 by the mean value for each individual animal.
1305: The value of the coefficient is then $\alpha=-7.98\pm 6.24$, with the probability
1306: of positive coefficient $p=0.055$. Thus the decrease of the period with filling fraction is even more certain, when the inter-individual
1307: variability is accounted for. The value of coefficient $\alpha$ obtained from the theory is $2$ (Fig.~\ref{fr}, $N_s/N_o=11$).
1308: It is consistent with both measurements.
1309:
1310:
1311:
1312:
1313:
1314: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1315: %
1316: % Figure 17
1317: %
1318: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1319: \begin{figure}
1320: %\vspace{2in}
1321: \centerline{
1322: %\psfig{file=fig18.eps,width=3.1in}
1323: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig17.ps}
1324: }
1325: %\vspace{0.5in}
1326: \caption{
1327: The dependence of the ODP period on the filling fraction based on data from Tychsen and Burkhalter (1997).
1328: The results for non-strabismic adult macaque monkeys are presented by markers:
1329: monkeys M25 right V1 (diamonds), M25 left V1 (circles), 418 (squares), and 906 (dots).
1330: The curve shows the best parabolic fit (see text).
1331: \label{tychsen}
1332: }
1333: %\vspace{-0.1in}
1334: \end{figure}
1335:
1336:
1337:
1338:
1339:
1340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1343:
1344:
1345:
1346:
1347:
1348:
1349:
1350:
1351:
1352:
1353: \section{Discussion}
1354: \label{Discussion}
1355:
1356:
1357: In this work we propose a model which can account for most of experimentally observed features of ODPs.
1358: Our model has two principal parameters. The first parameter characterizes the intracortical circuitry.
1359: It is the difference between the number of connections to the same and to the opposite OD neurons.
1360: Our results suggest that this difference is the driving force of segregation into ODPs.
1361: We argue therefore that the sensitivity of the intra-cortical connectivity to OD
1362: provides a reason to formation of OD columns (see below).
1363: The second parameter is the fraction of neurons dominated by the ipsilateral eye.
1364: This parameter determines the shape of monocular regions in ODP.
1365: In the majority of the primary visual area of macaque and {\it Cebus} monkeys
1366: this parameter is close to $50\%$, which implies that both ipsi- and contralateral
1367: eyes are equally represented. However, in the proximity of monocular crescent
1368: the ipsilateral eye becomes underrepresented.
1369: This is because the inputs into the eye are blocked by the nose of the animal.
1370: Our theory suggests that the decrease in the filling fraction of the ipsilateral eye drives the transition in the ODP structure
1371: from stripy (zebra skin like) to patchy (similar to leopard skin). The transition occurs
1372: when the fraction of the ipsilateral eye dominated neurons
1373: approaches $40\%$ in both macaque and {\it Cebus} monkeys (see below).
1374: We also analyze the dependence of OD period on the parameters of our model and find satisfactory agreement with
1375: experimental data.
1376:
1377:
1378: \subsection{On the functional significance of OD columns}
1379:
1380: Each neuron in our model establishes certain number of intra-cortical connections
1381: with neurons dominated by the same and the opposite eye.
1382: As suggested by experimental studies in macaque striate cortex, neurons in layer $4C\beta$
1383: typically make more connections with neurons of the same OD (Katz et al., 1989).
1384: Thus, from wiring economy prospective, connections with neurons of the same OD are more important than the opposite eye connections.
1385: Therefore, it is advantageous to form OD columns, since they provide environment rich with the same OD neurons,
1386: which results in shortening connections to the same eye neurons.
1387: The wiring economy principle thus provides a natural reason for the existence of OD patterns,
1388: i.e. answers the first question in the program listed in the Introduction.
1389:
1390: Our model suggests that in primates with weakly defined OD columns, such as squirrel monkey (Hubel et al., 1976; Livingstone, 1996;
1391: Horton and Hocking, 1996b) and owl monkey (Livingstone, 1996), the difference between these two
1392: components of intracortical connectivity is not large. Such difference may be
1393: increased in these animals by experimentally induced strabismus.
1394: Indeed, strabismus reduces correlated activity between opposite OD cortical neurons, therefore
1395: reducing their connectivity $N_o$. Reduction in $N_o$ unbalanced by the corresponding reduction in $N_s$
1396: increases the parameter $N_s/N_o$
1397: and leads to sharpening of OD columns, according to our phase diagram in Fig.~\ref{PhD}.
1398: Such sharpening is indeed observed experimentally (Shatz et al., 1977; Lowel, 1994; Livingstone, 1996).
1399: This phenomenon was also predicted theoretically by Goodhill (1993).
1400:
1401: The two parameters of intra-cortical circuitry, $N_s$ and $N_o$, represent in our model the
1402: interplay between two classes of processing performed by the visual cortex.
1403: The first class includes the processing of the monocular image, for which connections to the same OD
1404: neurons are necessary. The second class includes various tasks related to stereopsis,
1405: which require comparison of two monocular images, relying on the connections between the opposite OD
1406: neurons. We proposed above that the function of OD columns is to shorten the connections between the same eye neurons.
1407: The impact of stereoscopic vision should therefore be the opposite: strong stereoscopy should make ODP weaker.
1408: Inversely, weak stereoscopy induces sharp ODPs. The latter statement is justified by
1409: the observations in animals with experimental strabismus. However, one should be careful about this statement,
1410: since the relation between functional and anatomical properties may not be direct.
1411:
1412: The situation in the animals with lateral eye positioning, such as mice, rats, tree shrews, etc., is different.
1413: In such animals the visual pathway is almost completely crossed, i.e. V1 in each hemisphere
1414: is strongly dominated by the contralateral eye [Drager, 1974, 1975, 1978; Drager and Olsen, 1980; Gordon and Stryker, 1996 (mouse);
1415: Hubel, 1977 (rat); Casagrande and Harting, 1975; Mully and Fitzpatrick, 1992 (tree shrew); Horton and Hocking, 1996b (other species)].
1416: As suggested by Antonini et al. (1999) this implies that the ODP contains only two large monocular 'columns', each spanning the whole hemisphere.
1417: This can be interpreted as an OD having very large period, spanning both striate cortices.
1418: This picture can be fitted into the framework of our model.
1419: Indeed, we predict that if the number of connections to the other OD neurons ($N_o$) is very small
1420: the OD has a very large period (Fig.\ref{fs}). Thus our model predicts that the number of connections received by each neuron
1421: from the neurons of the same OD ($N_s$) is much larger than the number of opposite eye connections ($N_o$)
1422: in the species with lateral eye positioning. This should include the cross-hemispheric projections.
1423: This statement should have functional consequences. Since $N_o$ is small,
1424: synthesis of images from two eyes is weaker.
1425: Therefore the animals have to find another strategy to implement stereopsis.
1426: Hooded rats for example use vertical head movements to estimate distances (Legg and Lambert, 1990).
1427: Our conclusion about small $N_o$ should also apply to the superior colliculus in these
1428: animals (Colonnese and Constantine-Paton, 2001),
1429: as well as to the tectum in lower vertebrates (Schmidt and Tieman, 1985), in which cases the visual inputs cross over almost completely too.
1430:
1431:
1432: To summarize, our model encompasses most of the phenomena related to the
1433: sharpness and observability of ODP. It relates the interspecies variability
1434: in the ODP to the relative amount of binocular interaction occurring in different species.
1435: Thus, we predict, that in the animals with weakly segregated columns (squirrel monkey) $N_s\approx N_o$;
1436: in the animals with sharp columns (macaque) $N_s$ is much larger than $N_o$ [confirmed by Katz et al., (1989)];
1437: and, finally, in the animals with lateral eye positioning, $N_o$ should have a value,
1438: whose contribution to the wirelength can be neglected.
1439:
1440:
1441:
1442:
1443:
1444:
1445: \subsection{Variation of the ODP period in the extrafoveal region}
1446:
1447: Another consequence of a decreasing $f_L$ in macaque is a decrease in the ODP period (LeVay et al., 1985).
1448: In Fig.~\ref{fp} we compare the result of our theory to the data from macaque monkey
1449: (Fourier transform applied to data from Horton and Hocking, 1996a).
1450: From this comparison we conclude that, according to the wiring economy principle, parameter $N_s/N_o>>1$, or cells establish much
1451: more connection with the same OD cells, than with the opposite. This result of
1452: is consistent with the observations of OD
1453: sensitive circuitry in the striate cortex of macaque by Katz et al. (1989).
1454:
1455: We chose the regions proximal to the horizontal meridian for this comparison.
1456: This is based on the assumption that cortical properties, such as $N_s$ and $N_o$,
1457: change little along this meridian. This assumption is in part supported by the fact
1458: that OD periodicity changes little on the large segment of the meridian
1459: occupied by stripes, spanning the region between about 2 and 25 degree eccentricity (notice very little scatter
1460: in Fig.~\ref{fp} around the point $f_L=1/2$). The changes in the period begin to occur when
1461: $f_L$ deviates from $1/2$. This is illustrated by Fig.~\ref{fp}. Other authors notice
1462: a decrease in the period when comparing vertical to horizontal meridian.
1463: Studies based of computer reconstructions report about 2 fold decrease in OD periodicity
1464: comparing these areas (LeVay et. al., 1985), while others, based of flat-mounts (Horton and Hocking, 1996a),
1465: report a more moderate change. Such variation cannot be accounted for by a decrease in parameter
1466: $f_L$ alone, since $f_L$ is about $1/2$ on both meridians in close proximity to parafoveal region (<20 degrees
1467: of eccentricity). Our model suggests two possibilities based on the variation in the
1468: intracortical circuitry, described by $N_s$ and $N_o$. Since such differences
1469: in the circuitry may also be responsible for variability of the OD period
1470: between different animals, we discuss this possibility in the next subsection.
1471:
1472:
1473: \subsection{Variability of the ODP period from individual to individual}
1474:
1475: Studies in macaque monkeys (Horton and Hocking, 1996a) reveal large
1476: inter-individual variability of the stripe period. The stripe period
1477: is $1072\pm 164\mu$ along the V1 border, after comparison of 6 animals.
1478: Two factors may contribute to this phenomenon in the framework of our model.
1479: (1) The basic diameter of axonal and dendritic arbors $D$ varies from animal to animal.
1480: This could be due to changes in $N_s$, $N_o$, or neuronal density.
1481: (2) The ratio between monocular and binocular interactions $N_s/N_o$ varies.
1482: The former reason is justified by Eq.~(\ref{scalab_form}). The latter can be understood from
1483: Fig.~\ref{fs}. Simply speaking, monocular interactions ($N_s$) favor formation of OD columns,
1484: making them wider, in an effort to provide same OD rich environment for all the neurons.
1485: Binocular interactions ($N_o$) favor interfaces between columns, since interfaces bring
1486: opposite OD neurons closer to each other. They therefore decrease OD period.
1487: When $N_s/N_o$ increases the OD period increases too (Fig.~\ref{fs}).
1488: This may occur when comparing different individuals.
1489:
1490:
1491:
1492: \subsection{ODP period in strabismic animals}
1493:
1494: Similar consideration may apply to the experiments in strabismic animals (Lowel, 1994; Livingstone, 1996).
1495: Since strabismus reduces correlations between eyes, its effect in our model
1496: is to reduce parameter $N_o$. Hence, the ratio $N_s/N_o$ is increased.
1497: According to our model (Fig.~\ref{fs}) this generally leads to an increase in the relative OD period
1498: (ratio of the basic OD periodicity to the connection range $D$). This result is understood
1499: from the interplay between affinity between the same eye neurons ($N_s$), increasing the period,
1500: and the affinity between opposite OD neurons ($N_o$), reducing OD period.
1501: Since the latter is reduced by strabismus, the OD period grows.
1502:
1503: The degree of the period change depends on the decrease in the number of interocular connection,
1504: and is difficult to estimate. A curious feature displayed by OD period in our model
1505: is an abrupt increase at $N_s/N_o\approx 1.15$ by a factor of about $2.3$, cf. Fig.~\ref{fs}.
1506: This implies that close to point $N_s/N_o=1.15$ the OD period may be very sensitive to developmental manipulations.
1507: This finding may have correlate in squirrel monkey, for which the observed increase in period is
1508: by a factor $2.9-3.6$ (Horton and Hocking, 1996b). These data are obtained from comparison to a single strabismic animal.
1509: The following scenario is possible, comparing squirrel monkey to the strabismus experiments
1510: in owl monkey (Livingstone, 1996), in which no significant increase in periodicity is observed.
1511: Parameter $N_s/N_o$ in squirrel monkey passes the point $N_s/N_o=1.15$ due to strabismus, leading to the substantial
1512: increase in period. In owl monkey parameter $N_s/N_o$ is above $1.15$ in normal animal. Strabismus therefore
1513: has little effect. This scenario is consistent with sharper OD columns in normal owl monkeys ($N_s/N_o>1.15$)
1514: than in normal squirrel monkeys ($N_s/N_o<1.15$) (Livingstone, 1996; Horton and Hocking, 1996b).
1515: Experimentally induced strabismus in cat leads to an increase in the OD period by a factor of $1.3$
1516: (Lowel, 1994; Goodhill, 1993; see however Jones et al., 1996). Our model suggests that parameter $N_s/N_o>1.15$ in cat,
1517: and the increase in the period is due to the smooth part of the dependence in Fig.~\ref{fs},
1518: which may not be so substantial as in squirrel monkey.
1519:
1520:
1521:
1522: \subsection{On the importance of wiring minimization}
1523:
1524: The relevance of wiring economy principle to the neuronal spatial organization
1525: can be illustrated by the following thought experiment (Koulakov and Chklovskii, 2001).
1526: Imagine taking a cortical area and scrambling
1527: neurons in that area, while keeping all the connections between neurons the
1528: same. Since the circuit is unchanged, the functional properties of the neurons
1529: remain intact. Therefore, from the functional point of view, the scrambled
1530: region is identical to the original one. In fact, the only difference caused by
1531: scrambling is in the length of neuronal connections. Therefore, it is hard (if
1532: not impossible) to justify the existence of systematic cortical maps, such as OD pattern,
1533: without invoking the cost of making long neuronal connections. Although some theories of
1534: map formation may not explicitly mention the wiring optimization principle, it
1535: is present implicitly, usually in requiring the locality of intra-cortical
1536: connections.
1537:
1538: How important is the constraint imposed by wiring minimization? In principle
1539: one can imagine development of an organism, which has 30\% excess of wire with
1540: respect to the existing ones. It turns out that the existence of such an organism is
1541: close to impossible. Indeed, imagine that an external object, such as a blood
1542: vessel, is introduced in certain area of the gray matter. In this case some of the
1543: neuronal connection have to go around the vessel, therefore increasing in
1544: length. If the nerve pulses are to be delivered at the original speed and/or
1545: intensity, the elongated axons and dendrites have to be made thicker, to
1546: increase the pulse propagation speed and decrease dendritic attenuation. This
1547: leads to more obstacles on the way of other neuronal connections and so on.
1548: Thus, introduction of a new blood vessel leads to an infinite series of axonal
1549: and dendritic reconstructions. The same is true about the extra connection
1550: volume, resulting from wasteful neuronal positioning. Such infinite series of
1551: reconstructions can diverge, which implies that the connection volume resulting
1552: from more and more reconstructions increases indefinitely. In this case the
1553: new blood vessel can never be inserted without sacrificing significantly the
1554: brain function. It turns out that mammalian brain has reached the verge of
1555: this so called {\it wiring catastrophe} (Chklovskii and Stevens, 2001), so that
1556: it gets increasingly more difficult to accommodate excess volume in the nerve
1557: tissues.
1558:
1559: The wiring catastrophe occurs when the fraction of axons and dendrites in the
1560: cortical volume reaches $60\%$. Electron microscopy studies of
1561: cortical slices show that the actual volume occupied by neuronal processes
1562: is about $55\%$ (Chklovskii and Stevens, 2001).
1563: The brain therefore has approached the barrier imposed by wiring catastrophe.
1564: Further increase of the volume fraction of neuronal processed may deteriorate
1565: the brain function.
1566:
1567:
1568:
1569:
1570: \subsection{Comparison to other models}
1571:
1572: As discussed in the previous subsection, wiring optimization is the only known
1573: way to relate neuronal layout (as manifested in the ODP) to the statistics of
1574: neuronal connectivity. Models of the ODP development that do not explicitly rely
1575: on wiring optimization invoke it implicitly, usually requiring the locality of
1576: intra-cortical connections.
1577:
1578: Here we discuss the relationship of our model to the models that invoke wiring
1579: optimization explicitly.
1580:
1581: In his pioneering work, Mitchison (1991) studied a question whether ODP minimize the
1582: wiring volume relative to the {\it Salt and Pepper} layout. He assumed that the inter-
1583: neuronal connectivity is determined both by ocular dominance and retinotopy with
1584: all neurons having the same connectivity rules. He found that the answer to this
1585: question depends on the detailed assumptions about axonal branching rules.
1586: In particular it depends on the value of axonal branching exponent $\alpha$.
1587: He has shown that if all axonal segments have the same caliber ($\alpha=\infty$),
1588: than ODP's are indeed advantageous for certain range of ratios of same-eye to opposite-eye
1589: connections. He also showed that if $\alpha<4$ than the ODP do not save wiring volume relative to {\it Salt and Pepper}.
1590: However, existing data seems to suggest that axonal caliber branches with $\alpha<4$
1591: (Deschenes and Landry 1980, Adal and Barker, 1965).
1592:
1593:
1594:
1595: The case of axonal branching with the cross-sectional area conservation
1596: corresponds closely to our model because we require a separate connection for
1597: each neuron. The reason we find that ODP minimize wiring length is because we
1598: drop the retinotopy requirement on inter-neuronal connection rules, an
1599: assumption supported by the experimental data (Katz). Although, effectively
1600: connections are roughly retinotopic, connection rules may vary from neuron to
1601: neuron thus providing some flexibility. The advantage of our approach is its
1602: simplicity allowing us to map out a complete phase diagram and make
1603: experimentally testable predictions. The full theory of the ODP will require a
1604: detailed analysis of axonal branching which must rely on better knowledge of
1605: axonal branching rules.
1606:
1607: Jones et al. (1991) proposed an explanation for why ODP have either Stripy or Patchy
1608: appearance. They assumed that neurons are already segregated into the ODP (by
1609: considering units whose size equals the width of monocular regions) and found
1610: that the difference between Stripy and Patchy appearances of the ODP could be
1611: due to the boundary conditions, i.e. different shape of V1 in different species.
1612: Although the correlation between the shape of V1 and the ODP layout is observed,
1613: the model of Jones et al. does not explain why peripheral representation of
1614: macaque V1 has patchy ODP or why ocular dominance stripes run perpendicular to
1615: the long axis of V1 in some parts of V1 but not in others. Moreover, it is the
1616: local structure of ODP that is likely to determine the shape of V1 and not the
1617: other way around. Therefore, unlike Jones et al., our work proposes a unified
1618: theory of ODP including {\it Salt and Pepper}, Stripy and Patchy layouts, and is based on
1619: local inter-neuronal connectivity rules.
1620:
1621: Another model related to wiring length minimization is the elastic net model
1622: studied by Goodhill and coworkers (1993). The original formulation of the model
1623: minimized the cost function which penalized for placing nearby neurons whose
1624: activity is not correlated, a choice justified by computational convenience.
1625: Later the elastic model was generalized by the introduction of a C measure.
1626: Maximization of C measure effectively corresponds to penalizing for placing
1627: correlated neurons far apart. Unlike wiring optimization the penalty does not
1628: increase beyond a distance called cortical interaction. Because of this, elastic
1629: net often yields solutions where left and right eye neurons are completely
1630: segregated into left and right eye maps.
1631:
1632: Our wiring optimization models can be viewed as a sub-set of models described by
1633: C measure. The advantage of our wiring optimization approach is that it has a
1634: transparent biological justification for the cost of placing neurons far from
1635: each other - the cost of wiring. Because of this, wiring optimization is a
1636: natural choice for questions related to the anatomy of intra-cortical
1637: connections.
1638:
1639: Wiring optimization provides a link between neuronal connectivity and spatial
1640: layout. Thus, it leaves open the connection between connectivity and
1641: computational function. Unlike most other models, which assume that neurons should
1642: be connected only if they are correlated, wiring optimization makes other assumptions about
1643: connectivity possible, for example connecting neurons with anti-correlated firing.
1644:
1645:
1646:
1647: \subsection{Conclusion}
1648:
1649:
1650: Our theory relates functional requirements on the neuronal circuits to its structural properties.
1651: In particular, our model relates the amounts of the neuronal intraocular and interocular interactions, and
1652: the filling fraction of ipsilateral neurons, to the structure of the ocular dominance pattern.
1653: We conclude that the interspecies variability in the ocular dominance patterns
1654: may be explained by differences in the underlying cortical circuitry.
1655:
1656:
1657:
1658:
1659:
1660:
1661:
1662:
1663:
1664:
1665:
1666:
1667:
1668:
1669:
1670: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1671:
1672: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1673: \small
1674:
1675:
1676:
1677: \bibitem{1} Adal MN, Barker D (1965) Intramuscular branching of fusimotor fibers. J Physiol 177:288-299.
1678: \bibitem{2} Ahmed B, Anderson JC, Douglas RJ, Martin KA, Nelson JC (1994) Polyneuronal innervation of spiny stellate neurons in cat visual cortex. J Comp Neurol 341:39-49.
1679: \bibitem{3} Allman JM, Kaas JH (1974) The organization of the second visual area (V II) in the owl monkey: a second order transformation of the visual hemifield. Brain Res 76:247-265.
1680: \bibitem{4} Anderson PA, Olavarria J, Van Sluyters RC (1988) The overall pattern of ocular dominance bands in cat visual cortex. J Neurosci 8:2183-2200.
1681: \bibitem{5} Antonini A, Fagiolini M, Stryker MP (1999) Anatomical correlates of functional plasticity in mouse visual cortex. J Neurosci 19:4388-4406.
1682: \bibitem{6} Blasdel GG, Fitzpatrick D (1984) Physiological organization of layer 4 in macaque striate cortex. J Neurosci 4:880-895.
1683: \bibitem{7} Cajal SRy (1995) Histology of the nervous system of man and vertebrates. New York: Oxford University Press.
1684: \bibitem{8} Casagrande VA, Harting JK (1975) Transneuronal transport of tritiated fucose and proline in the visual pathways of tree shrew Tupaia glis. Brain Res 96:367-372.
1685: \bibitem{9} Cherniak C (1992) Local optimization of neuron arbors. Biol Cybern 66:503-510.
1686: \bibitem{10} Chklovskii DB, Koulakov AA (2000) A wire length minimization approach to ocular dominance patterns in mammalian visual cortex. Physica A 284:318-334.
1687: \bibitem{11} Chklovskii DB (2000) Binocular disparity can explain the orientation of ocular dominance stripes in primate primary visual area (V1). Vision Res 40:1765-1773.
1688: \bibitem{12} Colonnese MT, Constantine-Paton M (2001) Chronic NMDA receptor blockade from birth increases the sprouting capacity. J Neurosci 21:1557-1568.
1689: \bibitem{13} Cowey A (1979) Cortical maps and visual perception: the Grindley Memorial Lecture. Q J Exp Psychol 31:1-17.
1690: \bibitem{14} Crair MC, Gillespie DC, Stryker MP (1998) The role of visual experience in the development of columns in cat visual cortex. Science 279:566-570.
1691: \bibitem{15} Deschenes M, Landry P (1980) Axonal branch diameter and spacing of nodes in the terminal arborization of identified thalamic and cortical neurons. Brain Res 191:538-544.
1692: \bibitem{16} Drager UC (1974) Autoradiography of tritiated proline and fucose transported transneuronally from the eye to the visual cortex in pigmented and albino mice. Brain Res 82:284-292.
1693: \bibitem{17} Drager UC (1975) Receptive fields of single cells and topography in mouse visual cortex. J Comp Neurol 160:269-290.
1694: \bibitem{18} Drager UC (1978) Observations on monocular deprivation in mice. J Neurophysiol 41:28-42.
1695: \bibitem{19} Drager UC, Olsen JF (1980) Origins of crossed and uncrossed retinal projections in pigmented and albino mice. J Comp Neurol 191:383-412.
1696: \bibitem{20} Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.
1697: \bibitem{21} Erwin E, Obermayer K, Schulten K (1995) Models of orientation and ocular dominance columns in the visual cortex: a. Neural Comput 7:425-468.
1698: \bibitem{22} Goodhill GJ (1993) Topography and ocular dominance: a model exploring positive correlations. Biol Cybern 69:109-118.
1699: \bibitem{23} Gordon JA, Stryker MP (1996) Experience-dependent plasticity of binocular responses in the primary visual cortex of the mouse. J Neurosci 16:3274-3286.
1700: \bibitem{24} Horton JC, Hocking DR (1996) Intrinsic variability of ocular dominance column periodicity in normal macaque monkeys. J Neurosci 16:7228-7239.
1701: \bibitem{25} Horton JC, Hocking DR (1996) Anatomical demonstration of ocular dominance columns in striate cortex of the squirrel monkey. J Neurosci 16:5510-5522.
1702: \bibitem{26} Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1965) Binocular interaction in striate cortex of kittens reared with artificial squint. J Neurophysiol 28:1041-1059.
1703: \bibitem{27} Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1969) Visual area of the lateral suprasylvian gyrus (Clare-Bishop area) of the cat. J Physiol 202:251-260.
1704: \bibitem{28} Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1974) Uniformity of monkey striate cortex: a parallel relationship between field size, scatter, and magnification factor. J Comp Neurol 158:295-305.
1705: \bibitem{29} Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1977) Ferrier lecture. Functional architecture of macaque monkey visual cortex. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 198:1-59.
1706: \bibitem{30} Jones DG, Van Sluyters RC, Murphy KM (1991) A computational model for the overall pattern of ocular dominance. J Neurosci 11:3794-3808.
1707: \bibitem{31} Jones DG, Murphy KM, Van Sluyters RC (1996) Spacing of ocular dominance columns is not changed by monocular deprivation or strabismus. Invest Ophtalmol Vis Sci 37:1964.
1708: \bibitem{32} Katz LC, Gilbert CD, Wiesel TN (1989) Local circuits and ocular dominance columns in monkey striate cortex. J Neurosci 9:1389-1399.
1709: \bibitem{33} Koulakov AA, Chklovskii DB (2001) Orientation preference patterns in mammalian visual cortex: a wire length minimization approach. Neuron 29:519-527.
1710: \bibitem{34} LeVay S, Gilbert CD (1976) Laminar patterns of geniculocortical projection in the cat. Brain Res 113:1-19.
1711: \bibitem{35} LeVay S, Connolly M, Houde J, Van Essen DC (1985) The complete pattern of ocular dominance stripes in the striate cortex and visual field of the macaque monkey. J Neurosci 5:486-501.
1712: \bibitem{36} Livingstone MS (1996) Ocular dominance columns in New World monkeys. J Neurosci 16:2086-2096.
1713: \bibitem{37} Lowel S (1994) Ocular dominance column development: strabismus changes the spacing of adjacent columns in cat visual cortex. J Neurosci 14:7451-7468.
1714: \bibitem{38} Mitchison G (1991) Neuronal branching patterns and the economy of cortical wiring. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 245:151-158.
1715: \bibitem{39} Mountcastle VB (1957) J Neurophysiol 20:408-434.
1716: \bibitem{40} Muly EC, Fitzpatrick D (1992) The morphological basis for binocular and ON/OFF convergence in tree shrew striate cortex. J Neurosci 12:1319-1334.
1717: \bibitem{41} Peters A, Payne BR, Budd J (1994) A numerical analysis of the geniculocortical input to striate cortex in the monkey. Cereb Cortex 4:215-229.
1718: \bibitem{42} Rockel AJ, Hiorns RW, Powell TP (1980) The basic uniformity in structure of the neocortex. Brain 103:221-244.
1719: \bibitem{43} Rosa MG, Gattass R, Fiorani M, Jr., Soares JG (1992) Laminar, columnar and topographic aspects of ocular dominance in the primary visual cortex of Cebus monkeys. Exp Brain Res 88:249-264.
1720: \bibitem{44} Schmidt JT, Tieman SB (1985) Eye-specific segregation of optic afferents in mammals, fish, and frogs: the role of activity. Cell Mol Neurobiol 5:5-34.
1721: \bibitem{45} Shatz CJ, Lindstrom S, Wiesel TN (1977) The distribution of afferents representing the right and left eyes in the cat's visual cortex. J Neurosci 16:5510-22.
1722: \bibitem{46} Shatz CJ, Stryker MP (1978) Ocular dominance in layer IV of the cat's visual cortex and the effects of monocular deprivation. J Physiol 281:267-283.
1723: \bibitem{47} Swindale NV (1980) A model for the formation of ocular dominance stripes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 208:243-264.
1724: \bibitem{48} Swindale NV (1996) The development of topography in the visual cortex: a review of models. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 7:161-247.
1725: \bibitem{49} Tychsen L, Burkhalter A (1997) Nasotemporal asymmetries in V1: ocular dominance columns of infant, adult, and strabismic macaque monkeys. J Comp Neurol 388:32-46.
1726: \bibitem{50} von der Malsburg C (1979) Development of ocularity domains and growth behaviour of axon terminals. Biol Cybern 32:49-62.
1727: \bibitem{51} Wiesel TN, Hubel DH, Lam DM (1974) Autoradiographic demonstration of ocular-dominance columns in the monkey striate cortex by means of transneuronal transport. Brain Res 79:273-279.
1728: \bibitem{52} Young MP (1992) Objective analysis of the topological organization of the primate cortical visual system. Nature 358:152-155.
1729:
1730:
1731:
1732: \end{thebibliography}
1733: %\end{multicols}
1734:
1735:
1736:
1737:
1738:
1739:
1740: \end{document}