Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:58:04.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial properties of retinal mosaics: An empirical evaluation of some existing measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

J. E. Cook
J. E. Cook
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mosaics of neurons are usually quantified by methods based on nearest-neighbor distance (NND). The commonest indicator of regularity has been the ratio of the mean NND to the standard deviation, here termed the ‘conformity ratio.’ However, an accurate baseline value of this ratio for bounded random samples has never been determined; nor was its sampling distribution known, making it impossible to test its significance. Instead, significance was assessed from goodness-of-fit to a Rayleigh distribution, or from another ratio, that of the observed mean NND to an expected mean predicted by theory, termed the dispersion index. Neither approach allows for boundary effects that are common in experimental mosaics. Equally common are ‘missing’ neurons, whose effects on the statistics have not been studied. To address these deficiencies, random patterns and real neuronal mosaics were analyzed statistically. Ns independent random-point samples of size Np were generated for 13 Np values between 25 and 6400, where Ns × Np ≥ 144,000. Samples were generated with rectangular boundaries of aspect ratio 1:1, 1:5, and 1:10 to examine the influence of sample geometry. NND distributions, conformity ratios, and dispersion indices were computed for the resulting 45,997 independent random patterns. From these, empirical sampling distributions and critical values were determined. NND distributions for small-to-medium, bounded, random populations were shown to differ significantly from Rayleigh distributions. Thus, goodness-of-fit tests are invalid for most experimental mosaics. Charts are presented from which the significance of conformity ratios or dispersion indices can be read directly. The conformity ratio reacts conservatively to extremes of sample geometry, and provides a useful and safe test. The dispersion index is nonconservative, making its use problematic. Tests based on the theoretical distribution of the dispersion index are unreliable for all but the largest samples. Random deletions were also made from 33 real retinal ganglion cell mosaics. The mean NND, conformity ratio, and dispersion index were determined for each original mosaic and 36 independent samples at each of nine sampling levels, retaining between 90% and 10% of the original population. An exclusion radius, based on a spatial autocorrelogram, was also calculated for each of these 10,725 mosaic samples. The mean NND was moderately insensitive to undersampling, rising smoothly. The exclusion radius was remarkably insensitive. The conformity ratio and dispersion index fell steeply, sometimes failing to reach significance while half of the cells still remained. For the same 33 original mosaics, linear regression showed the exclusion radius to be 62 ± 3% of the mean NND.

Keywords

Spatial distributionNearest-neighbor distanceSignificance testSpatial correlogram
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 15 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bowmaker, J.K. & Kunz, Y.W. (1987). Ultraviolet receptors, tetrachromatic colour vision and retinal mosaics in the brown trout (Salmo trutta): Age-dependent changes. Vision Research 27, 2101–2108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boycott, B.B. & Wässle, H. (1974). The morphological types of ganglion cells of the domestic cat's retina. Journal of Physiology 240, 397–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, P.J. & Evans, F.C. (1954). Distance to nearest neighbour as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35, 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, J.E. & Becker, D.L. (1991). Regular mosaics of large displaced and non-displaced ganglion cells in the retina of a cichlid fish. Journal of Comparative Neurology 306, 668–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, J.E., Becker, D.L. & Kapila, R. (1992). Independent mosaics of large inner- and outer-stratified ganglion cells in the goldfish retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology 318, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, J.E. & Sharma, S.C. (1995). Large retinal ganglion cells in the channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus): Three types with distinct dendritic stratification patterns form similar but independent mosaics. Journal of Comparative Neurology (in press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnelly, K.P. (1978). Simulations to determine the variance and edge effect of total nearest-neighbour distance. In Simulation Studies in Archaeology, ed. Hodder, I., pp. 91–95. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fernändez, E., Cuenca, N. & De Juan, J. (1993). A compiled BASIC program for analysis of spatial point patterns: Application to retinal studies. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 50, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oxford English Dictionary (1971). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peichl, L. (1991). Alpha ganglion cells in mammalian retinae: Common properties, species differences, and some comments on other ganglion cells. Visual Neuroscience 7, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podugolnikova, T.A. (1985). Morphology of bipolar cells and their participation in spatial organization of the inner plexiform layer of jack mackerel retina. Vision Research 25, 1843–1851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodieck, R.W. (1991). The density recovery profile: A method for the analysis of points in the plane applicable to retinal studies. Visual Neuroscience 6, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodieck, R.W. & Brening, R.K. (1983). Retinal ganglion cells: Properties, types, genera, pathways and trans-species comparisons. Brain, Behavior, and Evolution 23, 121–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodieck, R.W. & Marshak, D.W. (1992). Spatial density and distribution of choline acetyltransferase immunoreactive cells in human, macaque, and baboon retinas. Journal of Comparative Neurology 321, 46–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saito, H.-A. (1983). Morphology of physiologically identified X-, Y-, and W-type retinal ganglion cells of the cat. Journal of Comparative Neurology 221, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schall, J.D., Perry, V.H. & Leventhal, A.G. (1987). Ganglion cell dendritic structure and retinal topography in the rat. Journal of Comparative Neurology 257, 160–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanford, L.R. & Sherman, S.M. (1984). Structure/function relationships of retinal ganglion cells in the cat. Brain Research 297, 381–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaney, D.I. (1994). Patterns of neuronal coupling in the retina. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 13, 301–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaney, D.I., Whitington, G.E. & Young, H.M. (1989). The morphology and topographic distribution of substance-P-like immunoreactive amacrine cells in the cat retina. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (London) 237, 471–488.Google ScholarPubMed
Wässle, H. & Boycott, B.B. (1991). Functional architecture of the mammalian retina. Physiological Reviews 71, 447–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wässle, H., Peichl, L. & Boycott, B.B. (1981 a). Dendritic territories of cat retinal ganglion cells. Nature 292, 344–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wässle, H., Peichl, L. & Boycott, B.B. (1981 b). Morphology and topography of on- and off-alpha cells in the cat retina. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (London) 212, 157–175.Google Scholar
Wässle, H. & Riemann, H.J. (1978). The mosaic of nerve cells in the mammalian retina. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (London) 200, 441–461.Google ScholarPubMed