Comparison of visually evoked local field potentials in isolated turtle brain: Patterned versus blank stimulation

Luo, Qing; Lu, Huo; Lu, Hanbing; Yang, Yihong; Gao, Jia‐Hong

doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.12.005

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is almost certainly the case 512 that both of these effects contribute to the adaptation observed in the cortex. Adaptation 513 in our preparations seems to persist for several seconds to a minute in line with others 514 that showed complete recovery happens in ~16 s (Luo et al, 2010). Though some 515 studies described recovery times in visual cortex ranging from 0.5 min to 516 3 min (Gusel'nikov et al, 1972).…”

supporting

confidence: 81%

Visual Response Properties in the Three Layer Turtle Visual Cortex

Hoseini

Pobst

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

12Turtle dorsal cortex provides us with unique insights into cortical processing. It is 13 known to share many features with the mammalian hippocampus and olfactory cortex 14 as well as geniculo-cortical areas in stem amniotes from which mammals evolved. To 15 this end, we have used data from extracellular recordings from microelectrode arrays to 16 study spatial and temporal patterns of responses to visual stimuli as seen in both local 17 field potential and action potentials. We discovered surprisingly large receptive fields, 18 responsiveness to a broad range of stimuli, and high correlation between distant neural 19 ensembles across recording array. Moreover, we found significant response variability 20 regarding latency and strength in the presence of adaptation to both ongoing and 21 visually evoked activity. 22 23 Spatiotemporal Properties 25 65 decapitation was performed following anesthetization with Propofol (10 / ) (Ziolo 66and Bertelsen, 2009). We then removed the brain with the right eye attached and 67 proceeded to hemisect the eye. 68 5 To access the ventricular surface of the left visual cortex, we cut off ~1 of the 69 left olfactory bulb, which provided a hole to start a rostral-caudal cut through the medial 70 cortex. This cut continued from the olfactory bulb into the natural separation of the 71 medial cortex from the septum (about 1/3 of the cortex) and continued further along the 72 same line for ~1 − 2 into the caudal cortex. Finally, two cuts were made from the 73 medial cortex edge towards the dorsal cortex. These two cuts were started at roughly 74 1/3 and 2/3 the rostral-caudal length of the cortex and were made as short as possible 75 while still allowing the cortex to be unfolded and pinned flat. This length was usually 76 ~2 . 77 After making the cuts in the cortex, it was placed in the recording chamber on either 78 a Sylgard or agar surface, and insect pins were used to pin the cortex flat. Our 79 electrodes were then placed in the flattened cortex. The eye and brain were 80 continuously perfused with artificial cerebrospinal fluid (in mM; 85 NaCl, 2 KCl, 2 MgCl 2 , 81 45 NaHCO 3 , 20 D glucose, and 3 CaCl 2 bubbled with 95% O 2 and 5% CO 2 ), adjusted to 82 pH 7.4 at room temperature. To perfuse the eye without obstructing the image we 83 project onto the retina, a small wick was made from a Kimwipe. The wick connected an 84 artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) feed located ~1 above and to the side of the eye 85to the inside edge of the hemisected eye. If any brain tissue were large enough to 86 extend above the surface of the ACSF (e.g., the right cortex or the optic tecta), it would 87 be cover with a small piece of Kimwipe so that it would also stay in contact with ACSF. 88Recordings began 2-3 hours after anesthetization. 89 90 104 2 . Both monitor/mirror and projector stimulation was provided using software written in 105 python on a computer running Ubuntu 10.4. Visual stimuli included black dots moving 106 on a white screen, naturalistic video, and red LED flashes. 107 108 ...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 81%

Visual Response Properties in the Three Layer Turtle Visual Cortex

Hoseini

Pobst

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This suggests that spatiotemporal correlations of input stimuli play an important role in driving dCx neurons. Repeated stimulation (at intervals <5 s; Luo et al, 2010) of an area of the visual field resulted in a selective reduction of the response of individual neurons to that stimulus location, but not to surrounding areas. This form of stimulus-specific adaptation is similar to those reported in mammalian primary sensory areas (olfactory [Best and Wilson, 2004;Wilson, 1998], auditory [Ulanovsky et al, 2003], and visual [Benucci et al, 2013;Dragoi et al, 2000;M€ uller et al, 1999] cortices;higher-order cortices [e.g., ITC;De Baene and Vogels, 2010;Miller et al, 1991]; superior colliculus [Boehnke et al, 2011]; and avian tectum [Reches and Gutfreund, 2008]).…”

Section: Stimulus Specific Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One characteristic feature of visually evoked responses of dCx neurons is a prominent adaptation to repetitive stimulation, resulting in a complete extinction of the evoked responses after a few stimuli at interstimulus intervals (ISIs) shorter than several seconds (typically <5 s; Gusel'nikov and Pivovarov, 1978;Gusel'nikov et al, 1972;Hayes et al, 1968;Luo et al, 2010). To assess the spatial selectivity of this adaptation, we recorded, in anesthetized turtles, responses of dCx neurons to sparse noise stimuli in which one of the positions (adapting position) was more frequently stimulated than the others (test positions; P(adapting) = 0.9; Figure 8A).…”

Section: Spatially Selective Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early anatomical studies of the visual thalamocortical system suggested an unusual mapping of the retina onto dCx, such as the loss of topography along the vertical dimension of the visual field (Mulligan and Ulinski, 1990). Previous studies (Gusel'nikov et al, 1972;Mazurskaya, 1973;Mazurskaya et al, 1967) also suggested that dCx neuron visual receptive fields (RFs) cover the entire contralateral visual field with almost no spatial selectivity and that their responses adapt strongly and rapidly to repeated visual stimulation (Gusel'nikov and Pivovarov, 1978;Hayes et al, 1968;Luo et al, 2010). Electrophysiological and voltage-sensitive dye (VSD) imaging studies (Prechtl, 1994;Prechtl et al, 1997Prechtl et al, , 2000Robbins, 1999, 2002) reported the existence of interlocked stimulus-evoked oscillations and wave patterns, but the cellular activity underlying those macroscopic phenomena remains unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatial Information in a Non-retinotopic Visual Cortex

Fournier

Müller

Schneider

et al. 2018

Neuron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Turtle dorsal cortex (dCx), a three-layered cortical area of the reptilian telencephalon, receives inputs from the retina via the thalamic lateral geniculate nucleus and constitutes the first cortical stage of visual processing. The receptive fields of dCx neurons usually occupy the entire contralateral visual field. Electrophysiological recordings in awake and anesthetized animals reveal that dCx is sensitive to the spatial structure of natural images, that dCx receptive fields are not entirely uniform across space, and that adaptation to repeated stimulation is position specific. Hence, spatial information can be found both at the single-neuron and population scales. Anatomical data are consistent with the absence of a clear retinotopic mapping of thalamocortical projections. The mapping and representation of visual space in this three-layered cortex thus differ from those found in mammalian primary visual cortex. Our results support the notion that dCx performs a global, rather than local, analysis of the visual scene.

show abstract

The turtle visual system mediates a complex spatiotemporal transformation of visual stimuli into cortical activity

Hoseini

Pobst

et al. 2017

J Comp Physiol A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The three-layered visual cortex of turtle is characterized by extensive intracortical axonal projections and receives non-retinotopic axonal projections from lateral geniculate nucleus. What spatiotemporal transformation of visual stimuli into cortical activity arises from such tangle of malleable cortical inputs and intracortical connections? To address this question, we obtained band-pass filtered extracellular recordings of neural activity in turtle dorsal cortex during visual stimulation of the retina. We discovered important spatial and temporal features of stimulus-modulated cortical local field potential (LFP) recordings. Spatial receptive fields span large areas of the visual field, have an intricate internal structure, and lack directional tuning. The receptive field structure varies across recording sites in a distant-dependent manner. Such composite spatial organization of stimulus-modulated cortical activity is accompanied by an equally multifaceted temporal organization. Cortical visual responses are delayed, persistent, and oscillatory. Further, prior cortical activity contributes globally to adaptation in turtle visual cortex. In conclusion, these results demonstrate convoluted spatiotemporal transformations of visual stimuli into stimulus-modulated cortical activity that, at present, largely evade computational frameworks.

show abstract

Comparison of visually evoked local field potentials in isolated turtle brain: Patterned versus blank stimulation

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

Visual Response Properties in the Three Layer Turtle Visual Cortex

Visual Response Properties in the Three Layer Turtle Visual Cortex

Spatial Information in a Non-retinotopic Visual Cortex

The turtle visual system mediates a complex spatiotemporal transformation of visual stimuli into cortical activity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About