Sensory integration in the locust optomotor system--I: behavioural analysis

A looming-sensitive pathway responds to changes in the trajectory of object motion

Two identified locust neurons, the lobula giant movement detector (LGMD) and its postsynaptic partner, the descending contralateral movement detector (DCMD), constitute one motion-sensitive pathway in the visual system that responds preferentially to objects that approach on a direct collision course and are implicated in collision-avoidance behavior. Previously described responses to the approach of paired objects and approaches at different time intervals (Guest BB, Gray JR. J Neurophysiol 95: 1428–1441, 2006) suggest that this pathway may also be affected by more complicated movements in the locust's visual environment. To test this possibility we presented stationary locusts with disks traveling along combinations of colliding (looming), noncolliding (translatory), and near-miss trajectories. Distinctly different responses to different trajectories and trajectory changes demonstrate that DCMD responds to complex aspects of local visual motion. DCMD peak firing rates associated with the time of collision remained relatively invariant after a trajectory change from translation to looming. Translatory motion initiated in the frontal visual field generated a larger peak firing rate relative to object motion initiated in the posterior visual field, and the peak varied with simulated distance from the eye. Transition from translation to looming produced a transient decrease in the firing rate, whereas transition away from looming produced a transient increase. The change in firing rate at the time of transition was strongly correlated with unique expansion parameters described by the instantaneous angular acceleration of the leading edge and subtense angle of the disk. However, response time remained invariant. While these results may reflect low spatial resolution of the compound eye, they also suggest that this motion-sensitive pathway may be capable of monitoring dynamic expansion properties of objects that change the trajectory of motion.

Light and retinal damage in Nephrops norvegicus (L.) (Crustacea)

Nephrops norvegicus is a burrow-dwelling marine crustacean normally only active in dim light. The eye has typical crustacean rhabdoms each consisting of alternating layers of microvilli. On light adaptation, proximal shielding pigment moves up from the bases of retinula cells to surround the rhabdoms. In dark-adapted eyes the proximal pigment moves proximally to form a band just above the basement membrane. In this position the tapetum is unshielded and it reflects light back into the eye. The only other detectable difference between light- and dark-adapted eyes is a night-time increase in rhabdom volume. Creel-caught animals raised to the surface of Loch Torridon (NW Scotland) were exposed to ambient surface light for periods ranging from 9 min to 5 h. A short exposure (9 min, average intensity 380 μmol m –2 s –1 ) is sufficient to cause damage to the retinula cell layer. It is histologically detectable one month later. Animals fixed immediately after 15 min exposure show evidence of retinula cell breakdown with swelling of cell bodies and nuclei, escape of proximal shielding pigment from the retinula cells and vesiculation of the rhabdoms. After 2 h of illumination the microvilli of the rhabdom are completely disrupted with only membrane whorls remaining; proximal shielding pigment is found deep within the rhabdom. After 6 h of illumination the retinula cell body layer is absent and there is a massive invasion of the eye by haemocytes. By using animals acclimated to a 12 h light–12 h dark cycle (green light, 0.24 μmol m –2 s –1 ) we were able to test the effects of natural day­light (average intensity 180 μmol m –2 s –1 ) on dark- and light-adapted eyes of known physiological state. The animals were kept alive for two weeks after exposure and the percentage area of the retina destroyed was measured from serial wax sections. Dark-adapted eyes have substantial damage (76.74%) after only 15 s but light adaptation prevents damage with a similar exposure. After 5 min exposure, destruction is almost total (light-adapted, 97.16%; dark-adapted, 98.97%). Intensities of 1000 and 250 μmol m -2 s –1 with an artificial tungsten light source gave similar results. Light-adapted eyes are less sensitive than dark-adapted ones and longer exposures cause greater damage. At these relatively high intensities the damage caused by the two light levels is not very different. At lower intensities (10–250 μmol m –2 s –1 ) the amount of damage is proportional to the intensity. By using the tungsten source and 10 s expo­sures we found that dark-adapted eyes are damaged at 25 μmol m –2 s –1 and that light-adapted eyes are affected at 100 μmol m –2 s –1 .

Are there separate ON and OFF channels in fly motion vision?

Visual information is processed in a series of subsequent steps. The performance of each of these steps depends not only on the computations it performs itself but also on the representation of the visual surround on which it operates. Here we investigate the consequences of signal preprocessing for the performance of the motion-detection system of the fly. In particular, we analyze whether the retinal input signals are rectified and segregate into separate ON and OFF channels, which then feed independent parallel motion-detection pathways. We recorded the activity of an identified directionally selective interneuron (H1-cell) in response to apparent motion stimuli, i.e. sequential brightness changes at two neighboring locations in the visual field, as well as to brightness changes at only a single location. For apparent motion stimuli, the motion-dependent response component was determined by subtracting from the overall response to the individual stimulus components when presented alone. The following conclusions could be derived: (1) Apparent motion consisting of a sequence of increased or decreased brightness at two locations in the visual field have the same optimum interstimulus time interval (Fig. 3). (2) Sequences of brightness steps of like polarity (either increments or decrements) elicit positive and negative motion-dependent response components when mimicking motion in the cell's preferred and null direction, respectively. The motion-dependent response components are inverted in sign when the brightness steps of a stimulus sequence have a different polarity (Fig. 7). (3) The responses to the beginning and the end of a brightness pulse depend on the pulse duration. For pulse durations of less than 2 s, both events interact with each other (Fig. 9). All of these results do not provide any indication that the fly processes motion information in independent ON and OFF motion detectors. Brightness changes of both signs are rather represented at the input of the same movement detectors, and interactions between signals resulting from both brightness increments and decrements take their sign into account. This type of preprocessing of the retinal input is argued to render a motion-detection system particularly robust against noise.