To survive in the wild small rodents evolved specialized retinas. To escape predators, looming shadows need to be detected with speed and precision. To evade starvation, small seeds, grass, nuts and insects need to also be detected quickly. Some of these succulent seeds and insects may be camouflaged offering only low contrast targets.Moreover, these challenging tasks need to be accomplished continuously at dusk, night, dawn and daytime. Crossover inhibition is thought to be involved in enhancing contrast detectionin the microcircuits of the inner plexiform layer of the mammalian retina. The AII amacrine cells are narrow field cells that play a key role in crossover inhibition. Our lab studies the synaptic physiology that regulates glycine release from AII amacrine cellsin mouse retina. These interneurons receive excitation from rod and conebipolar cells and transmit excitation to ON-type bipolar cell terminals via gap junctions. They also transmit inhibition via multiple glycinergic synapses onto OFF bipolar cell terminals.AII amacrine cells are thus a central hub of synaptic information processing that cross links the ON and the OFF pathways. What are the functions of crossover inhibition? How does it enhance contrast detection at different ambient light levels? How is the dynamicrange, frequency response and synaptic gain of glycine release modulated by luminance levels and circadian rhythms? How is synaptic gain changed by different extracellular neuromodulators, like dopamine, and by intracellular messengers like cAMP, phosphateand Ca2+ ions from Ca2+ channels and Ca2+ stores? My talk will try to answer some of these questions and will pose additional ones. It will end with further hypothesis and speculations on the multiple roles of crossover inhibition.

Common factors are omnipresent in everyday life, e.g., it is widely held that there is a common factor g for intelligence. In vision, however, there seems to be a multitude of specific factors rather than a strong and unique common factor. In my thesis, I first examined the multidimensionality of the structure underlying visual illusions. To this aim, the susceptibility to various visual illusions was measured. In addition, subjects were tested with variants of the same illusion, which differed in spatial features, luminance, orientation, or contextual conditions. Only weak correlations were observed between the susceptibility to different visual illusions. An individual showing a strong susceptibility to one visual illusion does not necessarily show a strong susceptibility to other visual illusions, suggesting that the structure underlying visual illusions is multifactorial. In contrast, there were strong correlations between the susceptibility to variants of the same illusion. Hence, factors seem to be illusion-specific but not feature-specific. Second, I investigated whether a strong visual factor emerges in healthy elderly and patients with schizophrenia, which may be expected from the general decline in perceptual abilities usually reported in these two populations compared to healthy young adults. Similarly, a strong visual factor may emerge in action video gamers, who often show enhanced perceptual performance compared to non-video gamers. Hence, healthy elderly, patients with schizophrenia, and action video gamers were tested with a battery of visual tasks, such as a contrast detection and orientation discrimination task. As in control groups, between-task correlations were weak in general, which argues against the emergence of a strong common factor for vision in these populations. While similar tasks are usually assumed to rely on similar neural mechanisms, the performances in different visual tasks were only weakly related to each other, i.e., performance does not generalize across visual tasks. These results highlight the relevance of an individual differences approach to unravel the multidimensionality of the visual structure.