Cited by 28Neural dynamics and brain functionMotor Control and AdaptationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Optogenetic perturbations reveal the dynamics of an oculomotor integrator

Open access
Gonçalves, Pedro J., Arrenberg, Aristides B., Hablitzel, Bastian, Baier, Herwig, Machens, Christian K.·2014·Frontiers in Neural Circuits

Abstract

Many neural systems can store short-term information in persistently firing neurons. Such persistent activity is believed to be maintained by recurrent feedback among neurons. This hypothesis has been fleshed out in detail for the oculomotor integrator (OI) for which the so-called "line attractor" network model can explain a large set of observations. Here we show that there is a plethora of such models, distinguished by the relative strength of recurrent excitation and inhibition. In each model, the firing rates of the neurons relax toward the persistent activity states. The dynamics of relaxation can be quite different, however, and depend on the levels of recurrent excitation and inhibition. To identify the correct model, we directly measure these relaxation dynamics by performing optogenetic perturbations in the OI of zebrafish expressing halorhodopsin or channelrhodopsin. We show that instantaneous, inhibitory stimulations of the OI lead to persistent, centripetal eye position changes ipsilateral to the stimulation. Excitatory stimulations similarly cause centripetal eye position changes, yet only contralateral to the stimulation. These results show that the dynamics of the OI are organized around a central attractor state-the null position of the eyes-which stabilizes the system against random perturbations. Our results pose new constraints on the circuit connectivity of the system and provide new insights into the mechanisms underlying persistent activity.

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 · 10.3389/fncir.2014.00010

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Persistent activity in the oculomotor integrator is generated independently by each half of the brain.

    “physiological studies indicating that persistent activity in the oculomotor integrator is generated independently by each half of the brain20,43,44.”

    From Predicting modular functions and neural coding of behavior from a synaptic wiring diagram (2024) · cites this paper as [44]

    Materials and methods (Unilateral inactivation; page not provided) reports that neurons on the intact side remain stable after the other side is silenced, but only for the contralateral half of the motor range. Results (Network models of the oculomotor integrator; page not provided) also describes coupling between the sides by mutual inhibition. The paper therefore supports some independent maintenance of persistent activity, not the unqualified claim that each half generates it independently. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. Gonçalves P. J. (2012). A Neural Circuit Model of the Oculomotor Integrator: Theory for Optogenetic Dissection. PhD thesis, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gonçalves, P. J., Arrenberg, A. B., Hablitzel, B., Baier, H., & Machens, C. K.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
  • Arrenberg, Aristides B.
  • Machens, Christian K.
Venue
Frontiers in Neural Circuits
Published
2014
Volume
8
Pages
10-10
ISSN
1662-5110 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098004449
Cited by
28
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neural Circuits (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ((EXC 294))
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  • Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • National Institutes of Health (33210, NIH-R01)
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (SFRH/BD/33210/2007)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS053358)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
persistent activity, relaxation dynamics, optogenetic perturbation, halorhodopsin, channelrhodopsin, eye position, zebrafish, circuit connectivity
MeSH terms
Animals, Eye Movements, Models, Neurological, Neurons, Oculomotor Nerve, Zebrafish, Animals, Genetically Modified, Optogenetics

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