Re#nal

Ganglion Cell Parameters Predic#ng Human Performance in a Two-Stage Neural Spiking Model of Luminance Increment Detec#on
Jonathan Denniss1,2, Allison M. McKendrick1, Andrew Turpin2
1Optometry

& Vision Sciences, 2Computing & Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Background: Clinical perimetry measures non-central vision loss using circular luminance increment s#muli. Gardiner et al1 developed a model of perimetric s#mulus detec#on that used parameters from animal neurophysiology and signal detec#on based on ring rates in the visual cortex (Figure 1). Aim: To determine model re4nal ganglion cell (RGC) parameters that allow predic4on of human psychometric func4ons for luminance increment detec4on.

Figure 1: The model developed by Gardiner et al1. Plots are shown for a high-contrast s#mulus displayed from 400 to 600ms (shaded area in step 3). The upper row shows the modelled RGC stage, the lower row shows the cor#cal stage for a cor#cal cell with recep#ve eld centred on the RGC recep#ve eld. LGN contrast gain is assumed to be linear.

Other nearby RGCs also produce spikes

Add s#mulus independent spikes from other nearby cor#cal cells

Response criteria based on cell with most spikes during a 60ms window

Methods: 2IFC psychometric func#ons for detec#on of 0.43 (size III) and 1.70 (size V) diameter circular luminance increments were measured for two observers, at eight spa#al loca#ons (9, 9 and 15, 15). Model psychometric func#ons were computed for the same. RGC recep#ve eld characteris#cs, maximum ring rate and centre-to-centre spacing were varied within plausible ranges from the literature2,3 (Figure 2), and model/empirical psychometric func#ons were compared. Eects of increasing numbers of non-func#onal RGCs were also modelled.
Figure 2: Model RGC parameters varied, (a) heights and space constants of recep#ve eld centre/surround, (b) satura#on func#on, (c) spacing. Orange curves show the parameters that best matched the empirical data.

Results: RGC parameters (orange curves in Figure 2) were found that matched empirical detec#on thresholds across loca#ons and s#mulus sizes (mean dierence [95% CI] for smaller s#mulus -0.1dB [-0.5 to +0.3], for larger s#mulus +0.3dB [0 to +0.6]). Similar to the previous study1, empirical psychometric func#ons were steeper than those of the model (mean dierence [95% CI] for smaller s#mulus 1.0dB [0.9 to 1.1], for larger s#mulus 1.9dB [1.7 to 2.1]) (Figure 3). Increasing numbers of non-func#onal RGCs afened model psychometric func#ons and raised thresholds in a manner consistent with the literature on glaucoma pa#ents4. Conclusions: RGC parameters within the range found in primate electrophysiological studies allowed model thresholds but not slope of psychometric func#ons to match empirical data. Slope dierences may be due to unmodelled feedback factors. The model will be useful in predic#ng the eects of RGC disease on perimetric thresholds.
Figure 3: Example psychometric func#ons from the human observers (blue points, black curves) and the model with best RGC parameters (individual runs grey curves, mean orange curves). Thresholds (75% correct) predicted by the model were consistent with the empirical data, but model psychometric func#ons were consistently afer than empirical func#ons.

References: 1. Gardiner et al, Vision Res 2008; 48: 1859-1869 2. Croner & Kaplan, Vision Res 1995; 35: 7-24 3. Sjostrand et al, Vision Res 1999; 39: 2987-2998 4. Henson et al, Invest Ophth Vis Sci 2000; 417-421

Support: Australian Research Council, Heidelberg Engineering, VLSCI

jdenniss@unimelb.edu.au