The primary visual cortex (V1) directly projects to the superior colliculus (SC) and is believed to provide sensory drive for eye movements. Consistent with this, a majority of saccade-related SC neurons also exhibit short-latency, stimulus-driven visual responses, which are additionally feature-tuned. However, direct neurophysiological comparisons of the visual response properties of the two anatomically-connected brain areas are surprisingly lacking, especially with respect to active looking behaviors. I will describe a series of experiments characterizing visual response properties in primate V1 and SC neurons, exploring feature dimensions like visual field location, spatial frequency, orientation, contrast, and luminance polarity. The results suggest a substantial, qualitative reformatting of SC visual responses when compared to V1. For example, SC visual response latencies are actively delayed, independent of individual neuron tuning preferences, as a function of increasing spatial frequency, and this phenomenon is directly correlated with saccadic reaction times. Such “coarse-to-fine” rank ordering of SC visual response latencies as a function of spatial frequency is much weaker in V1, suggesting a dissociation of V1 responses from saccade timing. Consistent with this, when we next explored trial-by-trial correlations of individual neurons’ visual response strengths and visual response latencies with saccadic reaction times, we found that most SC neurons exhibited, on a trial-by-trial basis, stronger and earlier visual responses for faster saccadic reaction times. Moreover, these correlations were substantially higher for visual-motor neurons in the intermediate and deep layers than for more superficial visual-only neurons. No such correlations existed systematically in V1. Thus, visual responses in SC and V1 serve fundamentally different roles in active vision: V1 jumpstarts sensing and image analysis, but SC jumpstarts moving. I will finish by demonstrating, using V1 reversible inactivation, that, despite reformatting of signals from V1 to the brainstem, V1 is still a necessary gateway for visually-driven oculomotor responses to occur, even for the most reflexive of eye movement phenomena. This is a fundamental difference from rodent studies demonstrating clear V1-independent processing in afferent visual pathways bypassing the geniculostriate one, and it demonstrates the importance of multi-species comparisons in the study of oculomotor control.

The brain combines signals across the eyes. This process is well-characterized for the perceptual anatomical pathway through V1 that primarily codes contrast, where interocular normalization ensures that responses are approximately equal for monocular and binocular stimulation. But we have much less understanding of how luminance is combined binocularly, both in the cortex and in subcortical structures that govern pupil diameter. Here I will describe the results of experiments using a novel combined EEG and pupillometry paradigm to simultaneously index binocular combination of luminance flicker in parallel pathways. The results show evidence of a more linear process than for spatial contrast, that may reflect different operational constraints in distinct anatomical pathways.

To survive in the wild small rodents evolved specialized retinas. To escape predators, looming shadows need to be detected with speed and precision. To evade starvation, small seeds, grass, nuts and insects need to also be detected quickly. Some of these succulent seeds and insects may be camouflaged offering only low contrast targets.Moreover, these challenging tasks need to be accomplished continuously at dusk, night, dawn and daytime. Crossover inhibition is thought to be involved in enhancing contrast detectionin the microcircuits of the inner plexiform layer of the mammalian retina. The AII amacrine cells are narrow field cells that play a key role in crossover inhibition. Our lab studies the synaptic physiology that regulates glycine release from AII amacrine cellsin mouse retina. These interneurons receive excitation from rod and conebipolar cells and transmit excitation to ON-type bipolar cell terminals via gap junctions. They also transmit inhibition via multiple glycinergic synapses onto OFF bipolar cell terminals.AII amacrine cells are thus a central hub of synaptic information processing that cross links the ON and the OFF pathways. What are the functions of crossover inhibition? How does it enhance contrast detection at different ambient light levels? How is the dynamicrange, frequency response and synaptic gain of glycine release modulated by luminance levels and circadian rhythms? How is synaptic gain changed by different extracellular neuromodulators, like dopamine, and by intracellular messengers like cAMP, phosphateand Ca2+ ions from Ca2+ channels and Ca2+ stores? My talk will try to answer some of these questions and will pose additional ones. It will end with further hypothesis and speculations on the multiple roles of crossover inhibition.

Common factors are omnipresent in everyday life, e.g., it is widely held that there is a common factor g for intelligence. In vision, however, there seems to be a multitude of specific factors rather than a strong and unique common factor. In my thesis, I first examined the multidimensionality of the structure underlying visual illusions. To this aim, the susceptibility to various visual illusions was measured. In addition, subjects were tested with variants of the same illusion, which differed in spatial features, luminance, orientation, or contextual conditions. Only weak correlations were observed between the susceptibility to different visual illusions. An individual showing a strong susceptibility to one visual illusion does not necessarily show a strong susceptibility to other visual illusions, suggesting that the structure underlying visual illusions is multifactorial. In contrast, there were strong correlations between the susceptibility to variants of the same illusion. Hence, factors seem to be illusion-specific but not feature-specific. Second, I investigated whether a strong visual factor emerges in healthy elderly and patients with schizophrenia, which may be expected from the general decline in perceptual abilities usually reported in these two populations compared to healthy young adults. Similarly, a strong visual factor may emerge in action video gamers, who often show enhanced perceptual performance compared to non-video gamers. Hence, healthy elderly, patients with schizophrenia, and action video gamers were tested with a battery of visual tasks, such as a contrast detection and orientation discrimination task. As in control groups, between-task correlations were weak in general, which argues against the emergence of a strong common factor for vision in these populations. While similar tasks are usually assumed to rely on similar neural mechanisms, the performances in different visual tasks were only weakly related to each other, i.e., performance does not generalize across visual tasks. These results highlight the relevance of an individual differences approach to unravel the multidimensionality of the visual structure.

Artists have been doing experiments on vision longer than neurobiologists. Some major works of art have provided insights as to how we see; some of these insights are so undamental that they can be understood in terms of the underlying neurobiology. For example, artists have long realized that color and luminance can play independent roles in visual perception. Picasso said, "Colors are only symbols. Reality is to be found in luminance alone." This observation has a parallel in the functional subdivision of our visual systems, where color and luminance are processed by the evolutionarily newer, primate-specific What system, and the older, colorblind, Where (or How) system. Many techniques developed over the centuries by artists can be understood in terms of the parallel organization of our visual systems. I will explore how the segregation of color and luminance processing are the basis for why some Impressionist paintings seem to shimmer, why some op art paintings seem to move, some principles of Matisse's use of color, and how the Impressionists painted "air". Central and peripheral vision are distinct, and I will show how the differences in resolution across our visual field make the Mona Lisa's smile elusive, and produce a dynamic illusion in Pointillist paintings, Chuck Close paintings, and photomosaics. I will explore how artists have figured out important features about how our brains extract relevant information about faces and objects, and I will discuss why learning disabilities may be associated with artistic talent.

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.

Many visual systems can process information in dynamically changing environments. In general, visual perception scales with changes in the visual stimulus, or contrast, irrespective of background illumination. This is achieved by adaptation. However, visual perception is challenged when adaptation is not fast enough to deal with sudden changes in overall illumination, for example when gaze follows a moving object from bright sunlight into a shaded area. We have recently shown that the visual system of the fly found a solution by propagating a corrective luminance-sensitive signal to higher processing stages. Using in vivo two-photon imaging and behavioural analyses we showed that distinct OFF-pathway inputs encode contrast and luminance. The luminance-sensitive pathway is particularly required when processing visual motion in contextual dim light, when pure contrast sensitivity underestimates the salience of a stimulus. Recent work in the lab has addressed the question how two visual pathways obtain such fundamentally different sensitivities, given common photoreceptor input. We are furthermore currently working out the network-based strategies by which luminance- and contrast-sensitive signals are combined to guide appropriate visual behaviour. Together, I will discuss the molecular, cellular, and circuit mechanisms that ensure contrast computation, and therefore robust vision, in fast changing visual scenes.