In the model (Figure 6A), retinocollicular synapses develop according to a Hebbian plasticity rule, and compete with each other through the homeostatic regulation of total synaptic input to each SC neuron (see Experimental Procedures for more computational model details). At the beginning of each simulation, RGC projections to the SC are broad, and the binocular SC receives mixed input from the two eyes. During the simulation, retinal activity gradually modifies the pattern of retinocollicular connectivity through Hebbian

synaptic plasticity rules so that after each retinal wave some of the synapses are potentiated and others are weakened, depending on the size, position and eye of origin of the wave. We simulated the difference in map development between WT and β2(TG) mice by varying the spatial extent of waves while maintaining the

selleck screening library same level of overall retinal activity and the same frequency of waves per RGC, as observed experimentally. In simulations selleckchem with large retinal waves (WT mice), inputs from the two eyes segregate so that neurons in the binocular SC become responsive to input from only one eye (Figure 6B). Large waves also induce retinotopic refinement of retinocollicular projections, both in the monocular and binocular SC, by strengthening retinotopically correct projections and

weakening spatially inappropriate ones. Notably, simulations with small retinal waves reproduce both the monocular and binocular mapping phenotype of β2(TG) mice. In the monocular SC (or throughout the SC in one-eye enucleated animals), small-wave simulations result in retinotopic refinement, but in the binocular SC, both eye segregation and retinotopic Isotretinoin refinement are impaired (Figures 6B–6E). Why, according to the model, is retinal wave size (spatial extent) important for proper formation of both visual maps? In the binocular zone of the SC/dLGN, afferents from the two eyes compete with each other so that during each retinal wave, inputs from the corresponding eye are strengthened while inputs from the opposing eye are weakened. With small retinal waves, the amount of cooperative activity among RGCs from one eye is correspondingly small, so the strengthening of a “waving” eye is greatly reduced compared to when the wave covers a large portion of the retina. Afferents from the two eyes still compete in the “small-wave” scenario, but competition in this case does a poor job distinguishing between afferents from the two eyes, resulting in degraded eye-specific segregation. The model also shows why impairing eye-specific segregation interferes with retinotopic refinement in the binocular zone of the SC/dLGN.