We use rapid eye, head, and body movements to extract information from a new part of the visual scene upon each new gaze fixation. But the consequences of such visual actions go beyond their intended sensory outcomes. On the one hand, intrinsic consequences accompany movement preparation as covert internal processes (e.g., predictive changes in the deployment of visual attention). On the other hand, visual actions have incidental consequences, side effects of moving the sensory surface to its intended goal (e.g., global motion of the retinal image during saccades). In this talk, I will present studies in which we investigated intrinsic and incidental sensory consequences of visual actions and their sensorimotor functions. Our results provide insights into continuously interacting top-down and bottom-up sensory processes, and they reify the necessity to study perception in connection to motor behavior that shapes its fundamental processes.

Visual perception is perceived as continuous despite frequent disruptions in our visual environment. For example, internal events, such as saccadic eye-movements, and external events, such as object occlusion temporarily prevent visual information from reaching the brain. Combining evidence from these two models of visual disruption (occlusion and saccades), we will describe what information is maintained and how it is updated across the sensory interruption.   Lina Teichmann will focus on dynamic occlusion and demonstrate how object motion is processed through perceptual gaps. Grace Edwards will then describe what pre-saccadic information is maintained across a saccade and how it interacts with post-saccadic processing in retinotopically relevant areas of the early visual cortex. Both occlusion and saccades provide a window into how the brain bridges perceptual disruptions. Our evidence thus far suggests a role for extrapolation, integration, and potentially suppression in both models. Combining evidence from these typically separate fields enables us to determine if there is a set of mechanisms which support visual processing during visual disruptions in general.

Visual perception is perceived as continuous despite frequent disruptions in our visual environment. For example, internal events, such as saccadic eye-movements, and external events, such as object occlusion temporarily prevent visual information from reaching the brain. Combining evidence from these two models of visual disruption (occlusion and saccades), we will describe what information is maintained and how it is updated across the sensory interruption. Lina Teichmann will focus on dynamic occlusion and demonstrate how object motion is processed through perceptual gaps. Grace Edwards will then describe what pre-saccadic information is maintained across a saccade and how it interacts with post-saccadic processing in retinotopically relevant areas of the early visual cortex. Both occlusion and saccades provide a window into how the brain bridges perceptual disruptions. Our evidence thus far suggests a role for extrapolation, integration, and potentially suppression in both models. Combining evidence from these typically separate fields enables us to determine if there is a set of mechanisms which support visual processing during visual disruptions in general.

Everything we see has a location. We know where things are before we know what they are. But how do we know where things are? Receptive fields in the visual system specify location but neural delays lead to serious errors whenever targets or eyes are moving. Motion may be the problem here but motion can also be the solution, correcting for the effects of delays and eye movements. To demonstrate this, I will present results from three motion illusions where perceived location differs radically from physical location. These help understand how and where position is coded. We first look at the effects of a target’s simple forward motion on its perceived location. Second, we look at perceived location of a target that has internal motion as well as forward motion. The two directions combine to produce an illusory path. This “double-drift” illusion strongly affects perceived position but, surprisingly, not eye movements or attention. Even more surprising, fMRI shows that the shifted percept does not emerge in the visual cortex but is seen instead in the frontal lobes. Finally, we report that a moving frame also shifts the perceived positions of dots flashed within it. Participants report the dot positions relative to the frame, as if the frame were not moving. These frame-induced position effects suggest a link to visual stability where we see a steady world despite massive displacements during saccades. These motion-based effects on perceived location lead to new insights concerning how and where position is coded in the brain.

In this lecture, I will present our recent progress on three aspects of population responses in the primary visual cortex: encoding local stimulus attributes, electrical microstimulation and higher visual function. In the first part I will focus on population encoding and reconstruction of contour shapes in V1 and the comparison between monkey and mouse visual responses. In the second part of the talk I will present the effects of microstimulation on neural population in V1 and the relation to evoked saccades. In the final part of the talk I will discuss top-down influences in V1 and their relation to higher visual functions.

Several studies have showed that face stimuli elicit extremely fast and involuntary saccadic responses toward them, relative to other categories of visual stimuli. In the talk, I will mainly focus on a quite recent research done in our team that investigated to what extent face stimuli influence the programming and execution of saccades. In this research, two experiments were performed using a saccadic choice task: two images (one with a face, one with a vehicle) were simultaneously displayed in the left and right visual fields of participants who had to execute a saccade toward the image (Experiment 1) or toward a cross added in the center of the image (Experiment 2) containing a target stimulus (a face or a vehicle). As expected participants were faster to execute a saccade toward a face than toward a vehicle and did less errors. We also observed shorter saccades toward vehicle than face targets, even if participants were explicitly asked to perform their saccades toward a specific location (Experiment 2). Further analyses, that I will detailed in the talk, showed that error saccades might be interrupted in mid-fight to initiate a concurrently programmed corrective saccade.

Flies represent nearly 10% of all species described by science and are arguably unmatched among flying organisms in their aerial agility. The flight trajectory of flies often consists of crisp straight flight segments interspersed with rapid changes in course called body saccades. Recent advances in genetic tools have made it possible to explore the neurobiological circuitry underlying these two distinct modes of fly flight behavior.

Human vision relies on rapid eye movements (saccades) 2-3 times every second to bring peripheral targets to central foveal vision for high resolution inspection. This rapid sampling of the world defines the perception-action cycle of natural vision and profoundly impacts our perception. Marmosets have similar visual processing and eye movements as humans, including a fovea that supports high-acuity central vision. Here, I present a novel approach developed in my laboratory for investigating the neural mechanisms of visual processing using naturalistic free viewing and simple target foraging paradigms. First, we establish that it is possible to map receptive fields in the marmoset with high precision in visual areas V1 and MT without constraints on fixation of the eyes. Instead, we use an off-line correction for eye position during foraging combined with high resolution eye tracking. This approach allows us to simultaneously map receptive fields, even at the precision of foveal V1 neurons, while also assessing the impact of eye movements on the visual information encoded. We find that the visual information encoded by neurons varies dramatically across the saccade to fixation cycle, with most information localized to brief post-saccadic transients. In a second study we examined if target selection prior to saccades can predictively influence how foveal visual information is subsequently processed in post-saccadic transients. Because every saccade brings a target to the fovea for detailed inspection, we hypothesized that predictive mechanisms might prime foveal populations to process the target. Using neural decoding from laminar arrays placed in foveal regions of area MT, we find that the direction of motion for a fixated target can be predictively read out from foveal activity even before its post-saccadic arrival. These findings highlight the dynamic and predictive nature of visual processing during eye movements and the utility of the marmoset as a model of active vision. Funding sources: NIH EY030998 to JM, Life Sciences Fellowship to JY

Outside the foveola, visual acuity and other visual functions gradually deteriorate with increasing eccentricity. Humans compensate for these limitations by relying on a tight link between perception and action; rapid gaze shifts (saccades) occur 2-3 times every second, separating brief “fixation” intervals in which visual information is acquired and processed. During fixation, however, the eye is not immobile. Small eye movements incessantly shift the image on the retina even when the attended stimulus is already foveated, suggesting a much deeper coupling between visual functions and oculomotor activity. Thanks to a combination of techniques allowing for high-resolution recordings of eye position, retinal stabilization, and accurate gaze localization, we examined how attention and eye movements are controlled at this scale. We have shown that during fixation, visual exploration of fine spatial detail unfolds following visuomotor strategies similar to those occurring at a larger scale. This behavior compensates for non-homogenous visual capabilities within the foveola and is finely controlled by attention, which facilitates processing at selected foveal locations. Ultimately, the limits of high acuity vision are greatly influenced by the spatiotemporal modulations introduced by fixational eye movements. These findings reveal that, contrary to common intuition, placing a stimulus within the foveola is necessary but not sufficient for high visual acuity; fine spatial vision is the outcome of an orchestrated synergy of motor, cognitive, and attentional factors.

Ants, bees and other insects have the ability to return to their nest or hive using a navigation strategy known as path integration. Similarly, fruit flies employ path integration to return to a previously visited food source. An important component of path integration is the ability of the insect to keep track of its heading relative to salient visual cues. A highly conserved brain region known as the central complex has been identified as being of key importance for the computations required for an insect to keep track of its heading. However, the similarities or differences of the underlying heading tracking circuit between species are not well understood. We sought to address this shortcoming by using reverse engineering techniques to derive the effective underlying neural circuits of two evolutionary distant species, the fruit fly and the locust. Our analysis revealed that regardless of the anatomical differences between the two species the essential circuit structure has not changed. Both effective neural circuits have the structural topology of a ring attractor with an eight-fold radial symmetry (Fig. 1). However, despite the strong similarities between the two ring attractors, there remain differences. Using computational modelling we found that two apparently small anatomical differences have significant functional effect on the ability of the two circuits to track fast rotational movements and to maintain a stable heading signal. In particular, the fruit fly circuit responds faster to abrupt heading changes of the animal while the locust circuit maintains a heading signal that is more robust to inhomogeneities in cell membrane properties and synaptic weights. We suggest that the effects of these differences are consistent with the behavioural ecology of the two species. On the one hand, the faster response of the ring attractor circuit in the fruit fly accommodates the fast body saccades that fruit flies are known to perform. On the other hand, the locust is a migratory species, so its behaviour demands maintenance of a defined heading for a long period of time. Our results highlight that even seemingly small differences in the distribution of dendritic fibres can have a significant effect on the dynamics of the effective ring attractor circuit with consequences for the behavioural capabilities of each species. These differences, emerging from morphologically distinct single neurons highlight the importance of a comparative approach to neuroscience.