Figure 3.

Increased separation of contralateral and ipsilateral drives in Ten-m3 KOs. (a) Mean RF size for contralateral and ipsilateral eyes (mean ± SEM). No difference is observed between WT and Ten-m3 KO (ANOVA: F_3,94 = 0.778, P = 0.509). (b) Population differences in contralateral and ipsilateral drives separation between WT (n = 25) and KO (n = 32) V1 units. KO RFs have significantly greater separation compared with WT (mean ± SEM). WT: 9.5 ± 2.2° (median 0°); KO: 25.9 ± 3.7° (median 18.0°); Mann–Whitney U-test, *P < 0.01. (c) Sample normalized RF “heat” maps (see Materials and Methods) recorded from lateral area 17 of WT (top row) and Ten-m3 KO mice (bottom row) during stimulation of the contralateral (left) and ipsilateral (center) eyes. Overlay maps of activity from both eyes (right) show far greater separation of ipsilateral and contralateral drives in Ten-m3 KOs. The vertical meridian is shown as a white line, dotted lines mark 10° on either side. (d) Histogram plotting percentage of cells with a given ODI (1 = contralateral only, 0 = equal ipsilateral and contralateral drives, and −1 = ipsilateral only) in WTs (black, top) and Ten-m3 KOs (gray, bottom). Note the presence of a subset of entirely ipsilaterally driven cells in Ten-m3 KOs. (e) Cumulative probability distribution function of MI shows a shift to the right indicating a significant increase in monocularity in Ten-m3 KOs. This is also reflected in the mean MI (inset). *P < 0.001. (f) Preservation of contralateral retinotopy and aberrant ipsilateral drive in Ten-m3 KOs. RFs of single units recorded from central V1 in WT (left) Ten-m3 KO (middle and right) mice. The contralateral RFs are centered around 75° eccentricity in both WT (left) and KO (middle). This region of visual space also received drive from the central, binocular field via the ipsilateral eye (right) in Ten-m3 KOs. The ipsilateral and contralateral inputs are mismatched with respect to visual space. The WT cell did not receive ipsilateral drive above background levels.