Skip to main content
. 2014 Jun 4;112(6):1291–1306. doi: 10.1152/jn.00700.2013

Fig. 12.

Fig. 12.

Model fits of response tuning curves elicited by bidirectional stimuli moving at different luminance levels. A1–A3 (left) and B1–B3 (right) show results when the luminance levels of the 2 stimulus components were 10 vs. 40 cd/m2 and 2.5 vs. 40 cd/m2, respectively. The DivNorm model fits gave the same results as the LWS fits. A1 and B1: example neuron 1. The 3 models, LWS, DivNorm, and SNL, provided almost identical fits. A2 and B2: example neuron 2. The SNL model provided better fits than the LWS or DivNorm models. Including response nonlinearity increased the variance accounted for from 91.0% (LWS/DivNorm) to 98.8% (SNL) when the lower luminance was 10 cd/m2 and increased the variance from 96.8% (LWS/DivNorm) to 99.5% (SNL) when the lower luminance was 2.5 cd/m2. A3 and B3: model fits of the population-averaged tuning curves. Error bars of the bidirectional responses indicate SE.