Cited by 69Multisensory perception and integrationVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

Functional Profiles of Visual-, Auditory-, and Water Flow-Responsive Neurons in the Zebrafish Tectum

Open access
Thompson, Andrew W., Vanwalleghem, Gilles C., Heap, Lucy A., Scott, Ethan K.·2016·Current Biology

Abstract

The tectum has long been known as a hub of visual processing, and recent studies have elucidated many of the circuit-level mechanisms by which tectal neurons filter visual information. Here, we use population-scale imaging of tectal neurons expressing a genetically encoded calcium indicator to characterize tectal responses to non-visual stimuli in zebrafish. We identify ensembles of neurons responsive to stimuli for each of three sensory modalities: vision, audition, and water flow sensation. These ensembles display consistently represented response profiles to our stimuli, and each has a preferred stimulus and salient feature to which it is most responsive. Each sensory modality drives a unique spatial profile of activity in the tectal neuropil, suggesting that the neuropil's laminar structure functionally subserves multiple modalities. The positions of the responsive neurons in the periventricular layer are also distinct across modalities, and very few neurons are responsive to multiple modalities. The cells contributing to each ensemble are highly variable from trial to trial, but ensembles contain "cores" of reliably responsive cells, suggesting a mechanism whereby they could maintain consistency in reporting salient stimulus features while retaining flexibility to report on similar stimuli. Finally, we find that co-presentation of auditory or water flow stimuli suppress visual responses in the tectum.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2016.01.041

Cites

4 of 4 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 intermediate and deep layers of the optic tectum receive spatially ordered inputs from other sensory modalities, such as auditory, somatosensory, and lateral line information, in topographical correspondence with the superficial retinotopic visual map.

    “The intermediate and deep layers of the optic tectum also receive spatially ordered inputs from other sensory modalities, such as auditory, somatosensory, and lateral line information, in topographical correspondence with the superficial retinotopic visual map”

    From Spatial Cognition in Teleost Fish: Strategies and Mechanisms (2021) · cites this paper as [138]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thompson, A. W., Vanwalleghem, G. C., Heap, L. A., & Scott, E. K.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Scott, Ethan K.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-03
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
743-754
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2285139664
Cited by
69
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
tectum, zebrafish, visual processing, auditory processing, trial-to-trial variability, calcium imaging, genetically encoded calcium indicators
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Animals, Calcium, Larva, Microscopy, Neurons, Photic Stimulation, Superior Colliculi, Zebrafish, Animals, Genetically Modified

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