Rats maintain an overhead binocular field at the expense of constant fusion

Wallace, Damian J.; Greenberg, David S.; Sawiński, J; Rulla, S; Notaro, Giuseppe; Kerr, Jason N. D.

doi:10.1038/nature12153

Cited by 265 publications

(359 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

330

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is interesting to consider whether the differences between rodent and primate vision could help to explain the apparent disparity between encoding of head orientation in rodent EC and encoding of eye movements in primate EC. The primate visual system is distinctly different from the visual system of common laboratory rodents, which have a larger field of view, make few saccades, and lack a specialized retinal region like the primate fovea (29)(30)(31)(32). Consequently, sampling by moving the visual field via head movements in rodents might be similar to moving the fovea with the eyes in primates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saccade direction encoding in the primate entorhinal cortex during visual exploration

Killian

Potter

Buffalo

2015

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We recently demonstrated that position in visual space is represented by grid cells in the primate entorhinal cortex (EC), suggesting that visual exploration of complex scenes in primates may employ signaling mechanisms similar to those used during exploration of physical space via movement in rodents. Here, we describe a group of saccade direction (SD) cells that encode eye movement information in the monkey EC during free-viewing of complex images. Significant saccade direction encoding was found in 20% of the cells recorded in the posterior EC. SD cells were generally broadly tuned and two largely separate populations of SD cells encoded future and previous saccade direction. Some properties of these cells resemble those of head-direction cells in rodent EC, suggesting that the same neural circuitry may be capable of performing homologous spatial computations under different exploratory contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saccade direction encoding in the primate entorhinal cortex during visual exploration

Killian

Potter

Buffalo

2015

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results characterize for the first time to our knowledge, in a nonprimate species, perceptual effects of spatial attention that are distinct from the effects of motor preparation or cue-induced biases. Unlike primates, which typically make conjugate eye movements (the optical axes of both eyes moving in parallel), chickens (and many lateral-eyed animals) can move their eyes independently (31,32). In addition, because the axes of the eyes are directed laterally, the left and right eyes have different views of the world (31).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…It is possible that this region shares functional similarities with the foveal representation of other species. Further investigation into the relationships between cortical representations and retinal specializations may yield additional insights (Picanço-Diniz et al, 2011;Chang et al, 2013;Scholl et al, 2013;Wallace et al, 2013).…”

Section: Higher Cortical Magnification Near the Central Visual Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topography and Areal Organization of Mouse Visual Cortex

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To guide future experiments aimed at understanding the mouse visual system, it is essential that we have a solid handle on the global topography of visual cortical areas. Ideally, the method used to measure cortical topography is objective, robust, and simple enough to guide subsequent targeting of visual areas in each subject. We developed an automated method that uses retinotopic maps of mouse visual cortex obtained with intrinsic signal imaging (

show abstract

Rats maintain an overhead binocular field at the expense of constant fusion

Cited by 265 publications

References 23 publications

Saccade direction encoding in the primate entorhinal cortex during visual exploration

Saccade direction encoding in the primate entorhinal cortex during visual exploration

Visuospatial selective attention in chickens

Topography and Areal Organization of Mouse Visual Cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About