Cited by 138Visual perception and processing mechanismsZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research

Sensorimotor Decision Making in the Zebrafish Tectum

Open access
Barker, Alison J., Baier, Herwig·2015·Current Biology

Abstract

An animal's survival depends on its ability to correctly evaluate sensory stimuli and select appropriate behavioral responses. When confronted with ambiguous stimuli, the brain is faced with the task of selecting one action while suppressing others. Although conceptually simple, the site and substrate of this elementary form of decision making is still largely unknown. Zebrafish larvae respond to a moving dot stimulus in either of two ways: a small object (potential prey) evokes approach, whereas a large object (potential predator) is avoided. The classification of object size relies on processing in the optic tectum. We genetically identified a population of cells, largely comprised of glutamatergic tectal interneurons with non-stratified morphologies, that are specifically required for approach toward small objects. When these neurons are ablated, we found that the behavioral response is shifted; small objects now tend to elicit avoidance. Conversely, optogenetic facilitation of neuronal responses with channelrhodopsin (ChR2) enhances approaches to small objects. Calcium imaging in head-fixed larvae shows that a large proportion of these neurons are tuned to small sizes. Their receptive fields are shaped by input from retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) that are selective for prey identity. We propose a model in which valence-based decisions arise, at a fundamental level, from competition between dedicated sensorimotor pathways in the tectum.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.055

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The optic tectum of teleosts receives sensory information mainly from multiple sensory modalities to form real-time representations of the animal surrounding, to identify significant stimuli, like preys or predators, and to trigger sensory guided responses.

    “The optic tectum of teleosts receives sensory information mainly from multiple sensory modalities to form real-time representations of the animal surrounding, to identify significant stimuli, like preys, or potentially dangerous objects, as predators, and to trigger sensory guided responses.”

    From Spatial Cognition in Teleost Fish: Strategies and Mechanisms (2021) · cites this paper as [127]

  • Electrical stimulation of the intermediate and deep layers of the optic tectum of goldfish triggers orienting responses consisting of coordinated eye and fin movements, axial musculature adjustments, and locomotion behavior that closely resemble natural orienting responses.

    “Electrical stimulation of the intermediate and deep layers of the optic tectum of goldfish triggers orienting responses consisting of coordinated eye and fin movements, axial musculature adjustments, and locomotion behavior that closely resemble natural orienting responses”

    From Spatial Cognition in Teleost Fish: Strategies and Mechanisms (2021) · cites this paper as [127]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barker, A. J., & Baier, H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology (DE)
Corresponding author
Baier, Herwig
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
25
Issue
21
Pages
2804-2814
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1763198230
Cited by
138
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 6
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Zebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Keywords
sensorimotor decision making, approach-avoidance behavior, object size discrimination, retinal ganglion cells, neuronal ablation, optogenetic stimulation, calcium imaging, receptive fields
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Decision Making, Interneurons, Larva, Neurons, Photic Stimulation, Retinal Ganglion Cells, Superior Colliculi, Visual Pathways, Visual Perception, Zebrafish, Feedback, Sensory, Sensorimotor Cortex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review