Cited by 78Visual perception and processing mechanismsVestibular and auditory disordersMotor Control and Adaptation

Neuronal Architecture of a Visual Center that Processes Optic Flow

Open access
Kramer, Anna, Wu, Yunmin, Baier, Herwig, Kubo, Fumi·2019·Neuron

Abstract

Animals use global image motion cues to actively stabilize their position by compensatory movements. Neurons in the zebrafish pretectum distinguish different optic flow patterns, e.g., rotation and translation, to drive appropriate behaviors. Combining functional imaging and morphological reconstruction of single cells, we revealed critical neuroanatomical features of this sensorimotor transformation. Terminals of direction-selective retinal ganglion cells (DS-RGCs) are located within the pretectal retinal arborization field 5 (AF5), where they meet dendrites of pretectal neurons with simple tuning to monocular optic flow. Translation-selective neurons, which respond selectively to optic flow in the same direction for both eyes, are intermingled with these simple cells but do not receive inputs from DS-RGCs. Mutually exclusive populations of pretectal projection neurons innervate either the reticular formation or the cerebellum, which in turn control motor responses. We posit that local computations in a defined pretectal circuit transform optic flow signals into neural commands driving optomotor behavior. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.04.018

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 findings align well with biological studies showing that the OMR is most strongly evoked by motion in the lower posterior visual field, matching real pretectal receptive fields.

    “Notably, our findings align well with biological studies, which show that the OMR is most strongly evoked by motion in the lower posterior visual field (55), matching real pretectal receptive fields (31).”

    From Artificial embodied circuits uncover neural architectures of vertebrate visuomotor behaviors (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    The citation to this paper is attached to the claim about pretectal receptive fields, not the separate claim about where motion most strongly evokes the OMR. The AF5 results (p. 9) show pretectal direction-selective responses to stimuli presented from the side and from below, but do not establish receptive fields preferentially covering the lower posterior visual field. The paper therefore supports pretectal motion sensitivity, not the asserted spatial match. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Systematic manipulations of sensory features, including simZFish's optical lens and retinal connectivity, revealed key factors driving neural architecture and response characteristics.

    “Further, we used systematic manipulations of sensory features, including simZFish’s optical lens and retinal connectivity, to reveal key factors driving neural architecture and response characteristics (31, 37).”

    From Artificial embodied circuits uncover neural architectures of vertebrate visuomotor behaviors (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Introduction (p. 4) reports mapping retinal inputs and reconstructing optic-flow-responsive neurons, supporting the retinal-connectivity and neural-architecture aspects. The paper does not describe simZFish, an optical-lens manipulation, or systematic manipulations of those simulated features. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The simulations explain why pretectal neurons in real zebrafish preferentially respond to motion in the lower posterior visual field.

    “Specifically, our simulations explain why pretectal neurons in real zebrafish preferentially respond to motion in the lower posterior visual field (25, 30, 31), because with laterally positioned eyes, translational, bottom-projected visual stimuli generate opposing rotational optic flow patterns (Fig. 4E).”

    From Artificial embodied circuits uncover neural architectures of vertebrate visuomotor behaviors (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Summary (p. 2) reports that zebrafish pretectal neurons respond to optic flow, and the Results (pp. 8–9) examine motion presented from the side and below. But those passages do not establish that pretectal neurons preferentially respond to motion in the lower posterior visual field; the reported locations are neural structures, not a preferred region of visual space. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The open-source simZFish faithfully reproduces the zebrafish OMR using experimentally observed neural activity.

    “Benefitting from detailed experimental data (25, 29–34) and recent advances in physics simulation technologies (35), our open-source simZFish faithfully reproduces the zebrafish OMR, utilizing experimentally observed neural activity (25).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Schindelin, J., Arganda-Carreras, I., Frise, E., Kaynig, V., Longair, M., Pietzsch, T., Preibisch, S., Rueden, C., Saalfeld, S., Schmid, B., et al. (2012). Fiji: an opensource platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9 , 676-682. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0896-6273(1930375-7/sref59)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kramer, A., Wu, Y., Baier, H., & Kubo, F.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology (DE)
  • National Institute of Genetics (JP)
Corresponding author
Kubo, Fumi
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
103
Issue
1
Pages
118-132.e7
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946859016
Cited by
78
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SPP 2041)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
optical flow, pretectum, zebrafish, sensorimotor transformation, reticular formation, cerebellum, visual motion processing
MeSH terms
Animals, Cerebellum, Dendrites, Reticular Formation, Retinal Ganglion Cells, Superior Colliculi, Visual Pathways, Zebrafish, Vision, Binocular, Vision, Monocular, Presynaptic Terminals, Neuropil, Optic Flow

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