Literature DB >> 27804251

Psychophysical measurement of marmoset acuity and myopia.

Samuel U Nummela1, Shanna H Coop2, Shaun L Cloherty2,3, Chantal J Boisvert4, Mathias Leblanc5, Jude F Mitchell2.   

Abstract

The common marmoset has attracted increasing interest as a model for visual neuroscience. A measurement of fundamental importance to ensure the validity of visual studies is spatial acuity. The marmoset has excellent acuity that has been reported at the fovea to be nearly half that of the human (Ordy and Samorajski []: Vision Res 8:1205-1225), a value that is consistent with them having similar photoreceptor densities combined with their smaller eye size (Troilo et al. []: Vision Res 33:1301-1310). Of interest, the marmoset exhibits a higher proportion of cones than rods in peripheral vision than human or macaque, which in principle could endow them with better peripheral acuity depending on how those signals are pooled in subsequent processing. Here, we introduce a simple behavioral paradigm to measure acuity and then test how acuity in the marmoset scales with eccentricity. We trained subjects to fixate a central point and detect a peripheral Gabor by making a saccade to its location. First, we found that accurate assessment of acuity required correction for myopia in all adult subjects. This is an important point because marmosets raised in laboratory conditions often have mild to severe myopia (Graham and Judge []: Vision Res 39:177-187), a finding that we confirm, and that would limit their utility for studies of vision if uncorrected. With corrected vision, we found that their acuity scales with eccentricity similar to that of humans and macaques, having roughly half the value of the human and with no clear departure for higher acuity in the periphery.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Develop Neurobiol 77: 300-313, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  marmoset; myopia; psychophysics; vision

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27804251     DOI: 10.1002/dneu.22467

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dev Neurobiol        ISSN: 1932-8451            Impact factor:   3.964


  6 in total

1.  Recognition Memory in Marmoset and Macaque Monkeys: A Comparison of Active Vision.

Authors:  Samuel U Nummela; Michael J Jutras; John T Wixted; Elizabeth A Buffalo; Cory T Miller
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 2.  IMI - Report on Experimental Models of Emmetropization and Myopia.

Authors:  David Troilo; Earl L Smith; Debora L Nickla; Regan Ashby; Andrei V Tkatchenko; Lisa A Ostrin; Timothy J Gawne; Machelle T Pardue; Jody A Summers; Chea-Su Kee; Falk Schroedl; Siegfried Wahl; Lyndon Jones
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Natural image and receptive field statistics predict saccade sizes.

Authors:  Jason M Samonds; Wilson S Geisler; Nicholas J Priebe
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 24.884

4.  Motion Perception in the Common Marmoset.

Authors:  Shaun L Cloherty; Jacob L Yates; Dina Graf; Gregory C DeAngelis; Jude F Mitchell
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Visual Neuroscience Methods for Marmosets: Efficient Receptive Field Mapping and Head-Free Eye Tracking.

Authors:  Patrick Jendritza; Frederike J Klein; Gustavo Rohenkohl; Pascal Fries
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2021-05-17

6.  Simultaneous functional MRI of two awake marmosets.

Authors:  Kyle M Gilbert; Justine C Cléry; Joseph S Gati; Yuki Hori; Kevin D Johnston; Alexander Mashkovtsev; Janahan Selvanayagam; Peter Zeman; Ravi S Menon; David J Schaeffer; Stefan Everling
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 14.919

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.