Analysis of the chicken retina with an adaptive optics multiphoton microscope

Bueno, Juan M.; Giakoumaki, Anastasia; Gualda, Emilio J.; Schaeffel, Frank; Artal, Pablo

doi:10.1364/boe.2.001637

Cited by 28 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, many vertebrate species (such as chickens) and nonprimate mammalian species (such as rats and mice) do not have a fovea. In chickens, photoreceptor and retinal ganglion cell density varies by a factor of 2 to 5 across a comparable range of eccentricities (0-100°), and spatial acuity falls off by a factor of <2 between the center and the periphery (34,35). Thus, for chickens, compared with primates, orienting the eye toward a stimulus of interest does not substantially improve spatial resolution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Visuospatial selective attention in chickens

Sridharan

Ramamurthy

Schwarz

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voluntary control of attention promotes intelligent, adaptive behaviors by enabling the selective processing of information that is most relevant for making decisions. Despite extensive research on attention in primates, the capacity for selective attention in nonprimate species has never been quantified. Here we demonstrate selective attention in chickens by applying protocols that have been used to characterize visual spatial attention in primates. Chickens were trained to localize and report the vertical position of a target in the presence of task-relevant distracters. A spatial cue, the location of which varied across individual trials, indicated the horizontal, but not vertical, position of the upcoming target. Spatial cueing improved localization performance: accuracy (d′) increased and reaction times decreased in a space-specific manner. Distracters severely impaired perceptual performance, and this impairment was greatly reduced by spatial cueing. Signal detection analysis with an "indecision" model demonstrated that spatial cueing significantly increased choice certainty in localizing targets. By contrast, error-aversion certainty (certainty of not making an error) remained essentially constant across cueing protocols, target contrasts, and individuals. The results show that chickens shift spatial attention rapidly and dynamically, following principles of stimulus selection that closely parallel those documented in primates. The findings suggest that the mechanisms that control attention have been conserved through evolution, and establish chickens-a highly visual species that is easily trained and amenable to cutting-edge experimental technologiesas an attractive model for linking behavior to neural mechanisms of selective attention.T he capacity to select particular locations or stimuli for differential analysis and decision making is essential for any animal to behave intelligently in a complex environment. It follows that neural mechanisms that enable this capacity must have appeared early in evolution (1). In humans, and nonhuman primates, selective attention enables such adaptive behavior by selecting from all possible information the information that is most relevant for making decisions (2, 3). However, little is known about whether the capacity for selective attention exists in nonprimate vertebrate species.Studies that were intended to measure selective attention in nonprimate species have produced inconclusive results for several reasons. First, much of the previous work has inferred the capacity for selective attention based on selective learning or selective reporting of specific cue features, both in birds (4) and in rodents (5). For example, in highly cited work on feature-based attention (4), pigeons were reinforced for pecking on targets that contained combinations of two features (e.g., color and shape). In later trials, when the features were presented individually, they pecked almost exclusively on targets with only one of the two features (e.g., color, ignoring shape). The results ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Visuospatial selective attention in chickens

Sridharan

Ramamurthy

Schwarz

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1). Further details can be found in [16,27]. The setup also includes an AO module composed of a Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor and a deformable mirror, used to compensate for the laser beam and microscope optics aberrations in closedloop.…”

Section: Adaptive Optics Multiphoton Microscopymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although TPEF signal clearly visualizes most retinal layers from the nerve fiber layer to the PR outer segment [16], in the present work we are only interested in evaluating the spatial distribution of PRs and GCs in both control and myopic retinas. At each retinal depth-location six individual frames were acquired and averaged to get the final image.…”

Section: Adaptive Optics Multiphoton Microscopymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The anterior chamber depth enlarges [9] and the scleral creep rate increases, at least in mammalian myopia models [10]. The chicken retinal structures have been imaged with fluorescence [11] and brighfield microscopy [12], OCT [13] and more recently with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy [14], adaptive optics (AO) fundus imaging [15], and AO multiphoton microscopy [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since Imanishi and colleagues reported that both the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) [18] and the PR outer segments [19] of the mouse retina provided TPEF signal, different authors have explored the visualization and distribution of retinal cells in animal models [20][21][22] and humans [23][24][25][26]. In particular, the combination of AO and multiphoton microscopy provided improved images of every retinal layer in nonstained human and chicken retinas [16,23,27]. AO multiphoton ophthalmoscopy also provided images of PRs in living primate eyes [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retinal cell imaging in myopic chickens using adaptive optics multiphoton microscopy

Bueno¹,

Palacios²,

Giakoumaki³

et al. 2014

Biomed. Opt. Express

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abnormal eye growth induced by visual deprivation can modify the structure and density of the retinal cells. We have used an adaptive optics multiphoton microscope to image photoreceptors (PRs) and ganglion cells (GCs) at different retinal locations in unstained retinas of chicken eyes with about 10D of myopia and their normal-sighted fellow eyes. In all samples, the local averaged inter-PR distance increased with eccentricity. No significant differences in PR density were found between control and myopic eyes. GC density declined in myopic eyes compared to control eyes and the inter-cell distance increased. In normal eyes, the size of the GC cell bodies increased approximately two-fold between the area centralis and the peripheral retina. In myopic eyes, this trend was preserved but the GC bodies were larger at each retinal location, compared to control eyes. Obviously, GC morphology is changing when the retinal area is enlarged in myopic eyes.

show abstract

Retinal ganglion cell topography and spatial resolution of two parrot species: budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus) and Bourke’s parrot (Neopsephotus bourkii)

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retinal ganglion cell (RGC) isodensity maps indicate important regions in an animal's visual field. These maps can also be combined with measures of focal length to estimate the theoretical visual acuity. Here we present the RGC isodensity maps and anatomical spatial resolving power in three budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) and two Bourke's parrots (Neopsephotus bourkii). Because RGCs were stacked in several layers, we modified the Nissl staining procedure to assess the cell number in the whole-mounted and cross-sectioned tissue of the same retinal specimen. The retinal topography showed surprising variation; however, both parrot species had an area centralis without discernable fovea. Budgerigars also had a putative area nasalis never reported in birds before. The peak RGC density was 22,300-34,200 cells/mm(2) in budgerigars and 18,100-38,000 cells/mm(2) in Bourke's parrots. The maximum visual acuity based on RGCs and focal length was 6.9 cyc/deg in budgerigars and 9.2 cyc/deg in Bourke's parrots. These results are lower than earlier behavioural estimates. Our findings illustrate that retinal topography is not a very fixed trait and that theoretical visual acuity estimations based on RGC density can be lower than the behavioural performance of the bird.

show abstract

Analysis of the chicken retina with an adaptive optics multiphoton microscope

Cited by 28 publications

References 61 publications

Visuospatial selective attention in chickens

Visuospatial selective attention in chickens

Retinal cell imaging in myopic chickens using adaptive optics multiphoton microscopy

Retinal ganglion cell topography and spatial resolution of two parrot species: budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus) and Bourke’s parrot (Neopsephotus bourkii)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About