Seminars

Neuronal computations are matched to optimally encode the sensory information that is available and relevant for the animal. However, the physical distribution of sensory information is often shaped by the animal’s own behavior. One prominent example is the encoding of optic flow fields that are generated during self-motion of the animal and will therefore depend on the type of locomotion. How evolution has matched computational resources to the behavioral constraints of an animal is not known. Here we use in vivo two photon imaging to record from a population of >3.500 local-direction selective cells. Our data show that the local direction-selective T4/T5 neurons in Drosophila form a population code that is matched to represent optic flow fields generated during translational and rotational self-motion of the fly. This coding principle for optic flow is reminiscent to the population code of local direction-selective ganglion cells in the mouse retina, where four direction-selective ganglion cells encode four different axes of self-motion encountered during walking (Sabbah et al., 2017). However, in flies we find six different subtypes of T4 and T5 cells that, at the population level, represent six axes of self-motion of the fly. The four uniformly tuned T4/T5 subtypes described previously represent a local snapshot (Maisak et al. 2013). The encoding of six types of optic flow in the fly as compared to four types of optic flow in mice might be matched to the high degrees of freedom encountered during flight. Thus, a population code for optic flow appears to be a general coding principle of visual systems, resulting from convergent evolution, but matching the individual ethological constraints of the animal.

Tracking heading within an environment is a fundamental requirement for flexible, goal-directed navigation. In insects, a head-direction representation that guides the animal’s movements is maintained in a conserved brain region called the central complex. Two-photon calcium imaging of genetically targeted neural populations in the central complex of tethered fruit flies behaving in virtual reality (VR) environments has shown that the head-direction representation is updated based on self-motion cues and external sensory information, such as visual features and wind direction. Thus far, the head direction representation has mainly been studied in VR settings that only give flies control of the angular rotation of simple sensory cues. How the fly’s head direction circuitry enables the animal to navigate in dynamic, immersive and naturalistic environments is largely unexplored. I have developed a novel setup that permits imaging in complex VR environments that also accommodate flies’ translational movements. I have previously demonstrated that flies perform visually-guided navigation in such an immersive VR setting, and also that they learn to associate aversive optogenetically-generated heat stimuli with specific visual landmarks. A stable head direction representation is likely necessary to support such behaviors, but the underlying neural mechanisms are unclear. Based on a connectomic analysis of the central complex, I identified likely circuit mechanisms for prioritizing and combining different sensory cues to generate a stable head direction representation in complex, multimodal environments. I am now testing these predictions using calcium imaging in genetically targeted cell types in flies performing 2D navigation in immersive VR.

“Call me a marine vision scientist. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see what animals see in the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of dividing off the spectrum, and regulating circular polarisation.” Sometimes I wish I had just set out to harpoon a white whale as it would have been easier than studying stomatopod (mantis shrimp) vision. Nowhere near as much fun of course and certainly less dangerous so in this presentation I track the history of discovery and confusion that stomatopods deliver in trying to understand what the do actually see. The talk unashamedly borrows from that of Mike Bok a few weeks ago (April 13th 2021 “The Blurry Beginnings: etc” talk) as an introduction to the system (do go look at his talk again, it is beautiful!) and goes both backwards and forwards in time, trying to provide an explanation for the design of this visual system. The journey is again one of retinal anatomy and physiology, neuroanatomy, electrophysiology, behaviour and body ornaments but this time focusses more on polarisation vision (Mike covered the colour stuff well). There is a comparative section looking at the cephalopods too and by the end, I hope you will understand where we are at with trying to understand this extraordinary way of seeing the world and why we ‘pod-people’ wave our arms around so much when asked to explain; what do stomatopods see? Maybe, to butcher another quote: “mantis shrimp have been rendered visually beautiful for vision’s sake.”

We seek to understand the control of behavior – by animals, their brains, and their neurons. Reiser and his team are focused on the fly visual system, using modern methods from the Drosophila toolkit to understand how visual pathways are involved in specific behaviors. Due to the recent connectomics explosion, they now study the brain-wide networks organizing visual information for behavior control. The team combines explorations of visually guided behaviors with functional investigations of specific cell types throughout the fly brain. The Reiser lab actively develops and disseminates new methods and instruments enabling increasingly precise quantification of animal behavior.

Stereopsis – deriving information about distance by comparing views from two eyes – is widespread in vertebrates but so far known in only class of invertebrates, the praying mantids. Understanding stereopsis which has evolved independently in such a different nervous system promises to shed light on the constraints governing any stereo system. Behavioral experiments indicate that insect stereopsis is functionally very different from that studied in vertebrates. Vertebrate stereopsis depends on matching up the pattern of contrast in the two eyes; it works in static scenes, and may have evolved in order to break camouflage rather than to detect distances. Insect stereopsis matches up regions of the image where the luminance is changing; it is insensitive to the detailed pattern of contrast and operates to detect the distance to a moving target. Work from my lab has revealed a network of neurons within the mantis brain which are tuned to binocular disparity, including some that project to early visual areas. This is in contrast to previous theories which postulated that disparity was computed only at a single, late stage, where visual information is passed down to motor neurons. Thus, despite their very different properties, the underlying neural mechanisms supporting vertebrate and insect stereopsis may be computationally more similar than has been assumed.

We want to understand how the visual system detects and tracks salient stimuli in the environment to initiate and guide specific behaviors (i.e., visual neuroethology). Predator avoidance and prey capture are central selection pressures of animal evolution. Mice use vision to detect aerial predators and hunt insects. I will discuss studies from my group that identify specific circuits and pathways in the early visual system (i.e., the retina and its subcortical targets) mediating predator avoidance and prey capture in mice. Our results highlight the importance of subcellular visual processing in the retina and the alignment of viewing strategies with region- and cell-type-specific retinal ganglion cell projection patterns to the brain.

Praying mantises are the only insects known to have stereo vision. We used a comparative approach to determine how the mechanisms underlying stereopsis in mantises differ from those underlying primate stereo vision. By testing mantises with virtual 3D targets we showed that mantis stereopsis enables prey capture in complex scenes but the mechanisms underlying it differ from those underlying primate stereopsis. My talk will further discuss how stereopsis combines with second-order motion perception to enable the detection of camouflaged prey by mantises. The talk will highlight the benefits of a comparative approach towards understanding visual cognition.

In a cross wind, the direction a fly moves through the air may differ from its heading direction, the direction defined by its body axis. I will present a model based on experimental results that reveals how a heading direction “compass” signal is combined with optic flow to compute and represent the direction that a fly is traveling. This provides a general framework for understand how flies perform vector computations.

Animals are able to perceive self-motion and navigate in their environment using optic flow information. They often perform visually guided stabilization behaviors like the optokinetic (OKR) or optomotor response (OMR) in order to maintain their eye and body position relative to the moving surround. But how does the animal manage to perform appropriate behavioral response and how are processing tasks divided between the various non-cortical visual brain areas? Experiments have shown that the zebrafish pretectum, which is homologous to the mammalian accessory optic system, is involved in the OKR and OMR. The optic tectum (superior colliculus in mammals) is involved in processing of small stimuli, e.g. during prey capture. We have previously shown that many pretectal neurons respond selectively to rotational or translational motion. These neurons are likely detectors for specific optic flow patterns and mediate behavioral choices of the animal based on optic flow information. We investigate the motion feature extraction of brain structures that receive input from retinal ganglion cells to identify the visual computations that underlie behavioral decisions during prey capture, OKR, OMR and other visually mediate behaviors. Our study of receptive fields shows that receptive field sizes in pretectum (large) and tectum (small) are very different and that pretectal responses are diverse and anatomically organized. Since calcium indicators are slow and receptive fields for motion stimuli are difficult to measure, we also develop novel stimuli and statistical methods to infer the neuronal computations of visual brain areas.