Comparison of receptive‐field organization of the superior colliculus in Siamese and normal cats
Authors: Berman Nancy , Cynader Max 
Published: December 2014

1. The superior colliculus has been studied in Siamese and normal cats by recording the responses of single tectal units to visual stimuli.

2. The retinotopic organization of the superior colliculus has been compared in the two breeds. In the normal cat, the contralateral half‐field is represented in the central and caudal part of the colliculus, and a vertical strip of the ipsilateral half‐field, 15–20° wide, is represented at the anterior tip. The Siamese cat superior colliculus receives an abnormally large projection from the ipsilateral half‐field so that units with visual receptive fields which extend as far as 40° into the ipsilateral half‐field can be found. The area of the tectal surface devoted to the representation of the ipsilateral half‐field is about twice as large in Siamese cats as in normal cats. The enhanced representation of the ipsilateral half‐field in Siamese cats is reflected in a displacement of the vertical meridian and the area centralis on the tectal surface.

3. The area centralis in the Siamese cat is located at about the same point on the tectal surface as would be occupied by a point in the visual field about 6–7° contralateral to the area centralis in the normal cat. The smallest receptive fields in both breeds are located near the area centralis. The size of the receptive field for a tectal unit seems to be determined by the retinal location of the receptive field and not by the absolute position of the unit on the tectal surface.

4. The receptive‐field characteristics of tectal units show many similarities in the two breeds. The receptive fields of individual units consist of activating regions flanked by suppressive surrounds. Units respond well to stimuli of different shapes and orientation provided they are moving. The optimum stimulus for a given unit can be much smaller than the size of the activating region. About two thirds of the units studied in both breeds show directional selectivity. Most of the units studied in normal cats can be activated by stimulation of either eye, while in Siamese cats, 80% of the units studied can be driven only by the contralateral eye. A few monocularly driven units with two separated receptive fields have been observed in Siamese cats.

5. In the left tectum of both breeds, units respond well to left‐to‐right stimulus movement. The reverse situation obtains in the right tectum. In Siamese cats, units located at the anterior tip of the tectum with their receptive fields located in the visual half‐field ipsilateral to the tectum under study respond better to stimulus movement toward the area centralis than away from it. The preferred direction for a tectal unit seems to be determined by its tectal location rather than by the location of its receptive field in the retina.

6. Visual cortex lesions in both breeds increase the responsiveness of tectal units to flashing spots and almost entirely remove the directional selectivity exhibited by tectal units, although units with asymmetric surrounds are still found. In normal cats, the lesions change the ocular dominance distribution, skewing it more strongly toward the contralateral eye. In Siamese cats, the ocular dominance distribution remains unchanged after a visual cortex lesion.

7. The squint commonly exhibited by Siamese cats is regarded as a compensation for the anomalous retinotectal topography. It is suggested that, in the absence of an adaptive modification, the anomalous retinotectal projection would lead to mislocalization in Siamese cats just as it does in frogs and hamsters whose retinotectal projection has been experimentally altered. The convergent strabismus which Siamese cats commonly exhibit may be a cure for the abnormal retinal projections rather than a disease.