Neural circuits mediating visual flight control in flies. II. Separation of two control systems by microsurgical brain lesions

Hausen, Klaus; Wehrhahn, C

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.10-01-00351.1990

Cited by 56 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the rear part of the third visual ganglion, the so-called lobula plate, there resides a set of 50-60 individually identifiable interneurons (Fig, 2) which receive input from retinotopically arranged arrays of local motion-sensitive elements (Dvorak et al, 1975;Pierantoni, 1976;Hausen, 1976;Hausen et al, 1980;Hengstenberg et al, 1982;Hengstenberg, 1982;Borst and Egelhaaf, 1992). From various lines of evidence it is concluded that they are involved in the fly's course control (Geiger and N~issel, 1981;Geiger and N~issel, 1982;Hausen and Wehrhahn, 1983;Hausen and Wehrhahn, 1990;Heisenberg et al, 1978). In different representatives of these cells the phenomenon of gain control was studied (Hausen, 1982;Egelhaaf, 1985;Haag et al, 1992)leading to the following result ( Fig.…”

Section: Gain Control In Behavior and Motion-sensitive Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of dendritic integration underlying gain control in fly motion-sensitive interneurons

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the compensatory optomotor response of the fly the interesting phenomenon of gain control has been observed by Reichardt and colleagues (Reichardt et al., 1983): The amplitude of the response tends to saturate with increasing stimulus size, but different saturation plateaus are assumed with different velocities at which the stimulus is moving. This characteristic can already be found in the motion-sensitive large field neurons of the fly optic lobes that play a role in mediating this behavioral response (Hausen, 1982;Reichardt et al., 1983;Egelhaaf, 1985;Haag et al., 1992). To account for gain control a model was proposed involving shunting inhibition of these cells by another cell, the so-called pool cell (Reichardt et al., 1983), both cells sharing common input from an array of local motion detectors. This article describes an alternative model which only requires dendritic integration of the output signals of two types of local motion detectors with opposite polarity. The explanation of gain control relies on recent findings that these input elements are not perfectly directionally selective and that their direction selectivity is a function of pattern velocity. As a consequence, the resulting postsynaptic potential in the dendrite of the integrating cell saturates with increasing pattern size at a level between the excitatory and inhibitory reversal potentials. The exact value of saturation is then set by the activation ratio of excitatory and inhibitory input elements which in turn is a function of other stimulus parameters such as pattern velocity. Thus, the apparently complex phenomenon of gain control can be simply explained by the biophysics of dendritic integration in conjunction with the properties of the motion-sensitive input elements.

show abstract

Section: Gain Control In Behavior and Motion-sensitive Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of dendritic integration underlying gain control in fly motion-sensitive interneurons

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…FD-cells are output elements of the lobula plate and project into the lateral protocerebrum where they probably synapse on descending neurons. FD-cells have been suggested to play a crucial role in mediating object-directed turning responses (Egelhaaf 1985a,b,c;Egelhaaf et al 1988;Reichardt et al 1989;Hausen and Wehrhahn 1990). It has been suggested recently that, in addition to the FD-cells described by Egelhaaf (1985b), further types of¯y TCs exist which also exhibit small-®eld-tuning (Gauck and Borst 1999).…”

Section: Introductioǹmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of object motion by a fly neuron during simulated flight

Kimmerle

Egelhaaf

2000

Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of LPTCs have properties consistent with cells that process higher-order motion, such as the figure-detecting (FD) cells. FD cells respond to the motion of small objects in their receptive fields and are thought to support object fixation behavior (Egelhaaf, 1985a,b;Hausen and Wehrhahn, 1990). Flies produce yaw optomotor responses when challenged with second order motion which are not fully accounted for by integrated EMD signals alone (Theobald et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bimodal Optomotor Response to Plaids in Blowflies: Mechanisms of Component Selectivity and Evidence for Pattern Selectivity

Saleem

Longden²,

Schwyn³

et al. 2012

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many animals estimate their self-motion and the movement of external objects by exploiting panoramic patterns of visual motion. To probe how visual systems process compound motion patterns, superimposed visual gratings moving in different directions, plaid stimuli, have been successfully used in vertebrates. Surprisingly, nothing is known about how visually guided insects process plaids. Here, we explored in the blowfly how the well characterized yaw optomotor reflex and the activity of identified visual interneurons depend on plaid stimuli. We show that contrary to previous expectations, the yaw optomotor reflex shows a bimodal directional tuning for certain plaid stimuli. To understand the neural correlates of this behavior, we recorded the responses of a visual interneuron supporting the reflex, the H1 cell, which was also bimodally tuned to the plaid direction. Using a computational model, we identified the essential neural processing steps required to capture the observed response properties. These processing steps have functional parallels with mechanisms found in the primate visual system, despite different biophysical implementations. By characterizing other visual neurons supporting visually guided behaviors, we found responses that ranged from being bimodally tuned to the stimulus direction (component-selective), to responses that appear to be tuned to the direction of the global pattern (pattern-selective). Our results extend the current understanding of neural mechanisms of motion processing in insects, and indicate that the fly employs a wider range of behavioral responses to multiple motion cues than previously reported.

show abstract

Neural circuits mediating visual flight control in flies. II. Separation of two control systems by microsurgical brain lesions

Cited by 56 publications

References 31 publications

Mechanisms of dendritic integration underlying gain control in fly motion-sensitive interneurons

Mechanisms of dendritic integration underlying gain control in fly motion-sensitive interneurons

Detection of object motion by a fly neuron during simulated flight

Bimodal Optomotor Response to Plaids in Blowflies: Mechanisms of Component Selectivity and Evidence for Pattern Selectivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About