4.8 Article

Neural circuitry for stimulus selection in the zebrafish visual system

Journal

NEURON
Volume 109, Issue 5, Pages 805-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.12.002

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Max Planck Society
  2. DFG [SFB 870, SPP 1926]
  3. NIG-JOINT (2014-A)
  4. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development [JP20km0210087, JP20km0210168]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study explores how larval zebrafish select between simultaneously presented visual stimuli. It revealed the involvement of winner-take-all computation in the inner retina and reciprocal bilateral connections between nucleus isthmi and tectum in processing binocularly presented stimuli. These circuits enable selective visual attention depending on the relative locations of competing stimuli.
When navigating the environment, animals need to prioritize responses to the most relevant stimuli. Although a theoretical framework for selective visual attention exists, its circuit implementation has remained obscure. Here we investigated how larval zebrafish select between simultaneously presented visual stimuli. We found that a mix of winner-take-all (WTA) and averaging strategies best simulates behavioral responses. We identified two circuits whose activity patterns predict the relative saliencies of competing visual objects. Stimuli presented to only one eye are selected by WTA computation in the inner retina. Binocularly presented stimuli, on the other hand, are processed by reciprocal, bilateral connections between the nucleus isthmi (NI) and the tectum. This interhemispheric computation leads to WTA or averaging responses. Optogenetic stimulation and laser ablation of NI neurons disrupt stimulus selection and behavioral action selection. Thus, depending on the relative locations of competing stimuli, a combination of retinotectal and isthmotectal circuits enables selective visual attention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available