Behavioral Correlates of Central Visual Function in Anurans

Ingle, Dwight J.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-66316-1_13

Cited by 65 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The The preparatory phase Movements of the prey provide the primary cues for the initiation of the preparatory phase (Ingle, 1976;Ewert et al, 19701, although members of some populations of Bufo marinus apparently feed on vegetation (Zug and Zug, 1979) and individuals have been noted to take dog and cat food (Alexander, 1964;Clark, 1974). Our toads ignored all dead prey and tended to make preliminary visual discrimination among prey items.…”

Section: Generalmentioning

confidence: 86%

Functional morphology of lingual protrusion in marine toads (Bufo marinus)

Gans

Gorniak

1982

Am. J. Anat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bufo marinus catches its prey by stiffening the intrinsic muscles of the tongue, rapidly flipping the tongue out of the mouth. High-speed cinematography synchronized with computer-analyzed electromyograms (EMGs)shows that during the flip the tongue is supported by the M. genioglossus medialis and that this muscle stiffens into a rod when stimulated. Coincident stiffening of the transversely arranged M. genioglossus basalis provides a wedge under the anterior tip of this rod. Stiffening of the M. submentalis depresses the mandibular symphysis and brings the dentary tips together. The M. submentalis also acts on the wedge of the basalis to raise and rotate the rigid rod of the medialis over the symphysial attachment. The tip of this lingual rod carries along the pad and soft tissues of the tongue. The lingual pad, positioned the posterodorsal portion of the resting tongue, rotates during eversion so that its dorsal surface impacts onto the prey object. Retraction starts by contraction of the elongate, parallel fibers of the M. hyoglossus; this retracts the medical sulcus of the pad and holds the prey by a suction cup-like effect. The extensibility of the buccal membranes allows the pad to be retracted first; it reaches the posterior portion of the buccal cavity before the still-rigid, backward rotating M. genioglossus has reached the level of the symphysis. Protraction of the hyoid facilitates the extension of the M. hyoglossus. The M. sternohyoideus only retracts the hyoid and stabilizes it when the tongue starts to pull posteriorly; it does not assist tongue protrusion. The Mm. petrohyoideus and omohyoideus show only incidental activity, and the M. depressor mandibulae participate in mouth opening but is not otherwise involved in the flip. Previous hypotheses of the flipping mechanism are reviewed and evaluated.

show abstract

Section: Generalmentioning

confidence: 86%

Functional morphology of lingual protrusion in marine toads (Bufo marinus)

Gans

Gorniak

1982

Am. J. Anat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The optic tectum is a midbrain structure that in amphibians and other vertebrates is primarily responsible for transforming visual input into orienting behavior (Ewert 1997;Ingle 1976). Much like its mammalian homologue, the superior colliculus, the optic tectum also receives inputs from a variety of different sensory modalities, including a range of mechanosensory inputs carrying somatosensory, auditory, vestibular, and lateralline information (Behrend et al 2006;Lowe 1986Lowe , 1987Munoz et al 1995;Vanegas 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Multisensory Convergence in the Xenopus Optic Tectum

Deeg

Sears

Aizenman

2009

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Xenopus optic tectum receives and integrates visual and nonvisual sensory information. Nonvisual inputs include mechanosensory inputs from the lateral line, auditory, somatosensory, and vestibular systems. While much is known about the development of visual inputs in this species, almost nothing is known about the development of mechanosensory inputs to the tectum. In this study, we investigated mechanosensory inputs to the tectum during critical developmental stages (stages 42-49) in which the retinotectal map is being established. Tract-tracing studies using lipophilic dyes revealed a large projection between the hindbrain and the tectum as early as stage 42; this projection carries information from the Vth, VIIth, and VIIIth nerves. By directly stimulating hindbrain and visual inputs using an isolated whole-brain preparation, we found that all tectal cells studied received both visual and hindbrain input during these early developmental stages. Pharmacological data indicated that the hindbrain-tectal projection is glutamatergic and that there are no direct inhibitory hindbrain-tectal ascending projections. We found that unlike visual inputs, hindbrain inputs do not show a decrease in paired-pulse facilitation over this developmental period. Interestingly, over this developmental period, hindbrain inputs show a transient increase followed by a significant decrease in the ␣-amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionate (AMPA)/N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) ratio and show no change in quantal size, both in contrast to visual inputs. Our data support a model by which fibers are added to the hindbraintectal projection across development. Nascent fibers form new synapses with tectal neurons and primarily activate NMDA receptors. At a time when retinal ganglion cells and their tectal synapses mature, hindbrain-tectal synapses are still undergoing a period of rapid synaptogenesis. This study supports the idea that immature tectal cells receive converging visual and mechanosensory information and indicates that the Xenopus tectum might be an ideal preparation to study the early development of potential multisensory interactions at the cellular level.

show abstract

“…This 'sensorimotor' approach to the study of vi sion has revealed that different sequences of visuomotor behavior can be functional ly independent and that this independence is reflected in the organization of the neu ral pathways mediating the behavior. Thus, in the frog, the behavioral distinc tion between visually guided prey catching and visually guided barrier avoidance has been found to be reflected in a dissocia tion of their respective neural substrates [Ingle, 1973[Ingle, , 1976[Ingle, , 1982. Indeed, at least five separate (but interactive) visuomotor systems have been postulated to exist in the frog [Ingle, 1976[Ingle, , 1982, Similar disso ciations are beginning to emerge from studies of visual behavior in mammals [Goodale and Milner, 1982;Goodale and Munson, 1975;Schneider, 1969].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, in the frog, the behavioral distinc tion between visually guided prey catching and visually guided barrier avoidance has been found to be reflected in a dissocia tion of their respective neural substrates [Ingle, 1973[Ingle, , 1976[Ingle, , 1982. Indeed, at least five separate (but interactive) visuomotor systems have been postulated to exist in the frog [Ingle, 1976[Ingle, , 1982, Similar disso ciations are beginning to emerge from studies of visual behavior in mammals [Goodale and Milner, 1982;Goodale and Munson, 1975;Schneider, 1969]. In avian species, however, there have been few at tempts to study the spatiotemporal organi zation of visual behavior [Fùe et al, 1977;Friedman, 1975a, b;Frost, 1978Frost, , 1982Ve lez and Wallman, 1982].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visually Guided Pecking in the Pigeon <i>(Columba livia)</i>

Goodale

1983

Brain Behav Evol

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-speed cinematography was used (1) to analyze the sequence of head movements made by pigeons pecking at small visual targets and (2) to determine where on the retina the target fell at different points in the sequence. In both key-pecking for food reward and normal feeding, the decision to peck the target was made during a head fixation that occurred over 80 mm from the surface on which the target was located (as measured from the center of the eyes). Once the decision to peck had been made, a second fixation (F2) occurred at an average distance of 55 mm allowing the bird to calculate the size, depth, and location of the target. Moreover, during both fixations, the target was located in the pigeon's binocular field within a region corresponding to the red area of the upper temporal quadrant of the retina.

show abstract

Behavioral Correlates of Central Visual Function in Anurans

Cited by 65 publications

References 76 publications

Functional morphology of lingual protrusion in marine toads (Bufo marinus)

Functional morphology of lingual protrusion in marine toads (Bufo marinus)

Development of Multisensory Convergence in the Xenopus Optic Tectum

Visually Guided Pecking in the Pigeon <i>(Columba livia)</i>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About