The goal of this work was to provide a detailed quantitative description of the recepii ve-field properties of one of the types of rarely encountered retinal ganglion cells of cat; the cell named the Q-cell by Enroth-Cugell et al. (1983). Quantitative comparisons are made between the discharge statistics and between the spatial receptive properties of Q-cells and the most common of cat retinal ganglion cells, the X-cells. The center-surround receptive field of the Q-cell is modeled here quantitatively and the typical Q-cell is described. The temporal properties of the Q-cell receptive field were also investigated and the dynamics of the center mechanism of the Q-cell modeled quantitatively. In addition, the response vs. contrast relationship for a Q-cell at optimal spatial and temporal frequencies is shown, and Q-cells are also demonstrated to have nonlinear spatial summation somewhat like that exhibited by Y-cells, although much higher contrasts are required to reveal this nonlinear behavior. Finally, the relationship between Q-cells and Barlow and Levick's (1969) luminance units was investigated and it was found that most Q-cells could not be luminance units.

Previous evidence concerning the physiological cell classes in the medial interlaminar nucleus (MIN) has been conflicting. We reexamined the MIN using standard functional tests to distinguish X-, Y- and W-cells. Discharge patterns to flashing spots also were used to identify some cells as lagged or nonlagged, as previously done for the geniculate A-layers. Also, each cell's response timing (latency and absolute phase) was measured from discharges to a spot undergoing sinusoidal luminance modulation. Of 71 MIN cells, 48% were Y, 27% were W, 8% were X, and 17% were unclassifiable. Lagged and nonlagged discharge profiles were observed in each cell group, with 28% of all cells being lagged. Lagged cells displayed a response suppression and long latency to discharge following spot onset, and a slow decay in firing at spot offset that was often preceded by a transient discharge. These profiles were indistinguishable from those of lagged cells in the A-layers. MIN cells also were heterogeneous in response timing, displaying a range of latency and absolute phase values similar to that in the A-layers. We extended these analyses to 27 cells in the geniculate C-layers. In layer C, 35% of cells were Y, 10% were X, 25% were W, and 30% were unclassifiable. About 11% had lagged profiles, and were X-cells or unclassifiable cells. Layers C1 and C2 contained only W-cells and no lagged profiles. The range of timings in the C-layers was somewhat narrower than in the MIN. Overall, these results show that the MIN contains a greater variety of functional cell classes than heretofore appreciated. Further, it appears that mechanisms which create different timing delays in the A-layers also exist in the MIN and layer C. These timings may contribute to direction selectivity in extrastriate cortex.