Perception of Visual Motion Coherence by Rats and Mice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Vision Research 46 (2006) 2842–2847 www.elsevier.com/locate/visres Perception of visual motion coherence by rats and mice R.M. Douglas a,b,¤, A. Neve b, J.P. Quittenbaum b, N.M. Alam a, G.T. Prusky b a Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, 2550 Willow Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 3N9 b Canadian Centre for Behavioural Neuroscience, The University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alta., Canada T1K 3M4 Received 13 November 2004; received in revised form 17 January 2006 Abstract The coherence thresholds to discriminate the direction of motion in random-dot kinematograms were measured in rats and mice. Per- formance was best in the rats when dot displacement from frame-to-frame was about 2 degrees, and frame duration was less than 100 ms. Mice had coherence thresholds similar to those of rats when tested at the same step size and frame duration. Although the lowest thresh- olds in the rats and mice occasionally reached human levels, average rodent values (»25%) were 2–3 times higher than those of humans. These data indicate that the rodent and primate visual systems are similar in that both have local motion detectors and a system for extracting global motion from a noisy signal. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Extrastriate cortex; MT; Random dot; Kinematograms; Visual water task; Psychophysics 1. Introduction is, however, an open question whether primates have unique cortical capabilities, or whether such a functional The detection and eVective use of visual motion is organization is a fundamental property of mammalian widespread in the animal kingdom. Experimental investi- visual systems. If extrastriate analysis of global visual gations of the neural mechanisms of motion perception motion is common to mammals, this would have implica- have been conducted in species as diverse as Xies, pigeons, tions for its evolution and ecological utility. In addition, and monkeys (CliVord & Ibbotson, 2002), and simple studying motion perception in laboratory rodents would neural circuits capable of detecting local motion of single facilitate experiments into the cellular and molecular elements have been studied in the Xy (Reichardt, 1961) substrates of visual motion processing. To this point, and rabbit retinas (Barlow & Levick, 1965; Fried, Munch, however, no systematic study of motion perception has & Werblin, 2002). In recent years, it has become common been conducted in rodents, largely because it has been too to use dynamically moving random-dot patterns (or diYcult to test their visual motion thresholds psycho- kinematograms) to assess visual motion, as they enable physically. Over the past several years, we have used the the study of motion perception in the absence of posi- Visual Water Task (Prusky, West, & Douglas, 2000) to tional or form cues (Nakayama & Tyler, 1981). Percep- quantify acuity and contrast sensitivity thresholds in rats tual mechanisms that can detect common motion of and mice (McGill, Douglas, Lund, & Prusky, 2004; Pru- many elements have been identiWed in humans and other sky et al., 2000; Prusky & Douglas, 2004), and we report primates (Braddick, 1974; Morgan & Ward, 1980; Wil- here that this task can be adapted to measure their visual liams & Sekuler, 1984) and localized to extrastriate cor- motion thresholds. tex (Baker, Hess, & Zihl, 1991; Newsome & Paré, 1988). It In order to determine whether rodents have visual motion capabilities and anatomical substrates comparable * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 604 876 6553. to primates, we compared the dot motion coherence thresh- E-mail address: [email protected] (R.M. Douglas). olds of rats with those of humans. 0042-6989/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.02.025 R.M. Douglas et al. / Vision Research 46 (2006) 2842–2847 2843 2. Methods 2.3. Stimuli 2.1. Subjects Kinematograms were computed separately for each monitor before every trial, and were then played continuously until the end of the trial. A Six adult female Long–Evans rats and six adult C57BL/6 mice were random-dot kinematogram consisted of 24 frames or images. The diame- used in the experiments. The animals were between 90 and 150 days of age ter of the round dots was 1.9° for the rats, and 2.9° for the mice as studies at the start of training, and testing continued over the subsequent 4–6 from our laboratory (e.g., Prusky et al., 2000) have shown that the grating months. All procedures were authorized by the University of Lethbridge acuities of Long–Evans rats and C57BL/6 mice are 1.0 and 0.55 cycles per Animal Care Committee, which approves procedures that are conducted degree (c/d), respectively. The total area of the dots was about 20% of the in accordance with the standards of the Canadian Council on Animal screen area, and this corresponded to there being 62 (rats) or 28 (mice) 2 Care. dots on each image frame. The dots had a luminance of 96 cd/m and the 2 To facilitate comparison with human motion vision, three human background was 1.1 cd/m . observers viewed the same stimuli from the same distance. They used Each dot could move from one frame to the next, or disappear. The pushbuttons to start each trial and to record their decisions about which step size, or amplitude of the displacements from fame to frame, was the side had the positive stimulus. Human testing was conducted in accor- same for all dots, with only the direction of movement varied between dance with the guidelines of the University of Lethbridge Human Subjects frames. Motion noise was introduced by having a percentage of the dots Research Committee. move in random directions (Fig. 2) with the additional constraint that there was no net movement. The remainder of the dots all moved in one, 2.2. Apparatus coherent direction. Dot displacements of 0.24°, 0.47°, 0.94°, 1.88°, 3.77°, 5.65°, and 7.54° were used in diVerent blocks of trials. The Visual Water Task (Prusky et al., 2000) uses a trapezoidal tank After moving for 2 or 12 frames (lifetime) each dot was randomly repo- (120 cm L £ 80 cm W £ 26 cm W £ 55 cm H) with two ViewSonic EF70, sitioned, thus ensuring a constant number of dots on screen. A constant 17Љ computer monitors facing into one end (Fig. 1). A midline divider percent of dots died and were reborn elsewhere on each frame, and motion (46 cm) extends into the pool from between the monitors, each of which wrapped from the 24th to the 1st frame so that the kinematogram could be subtended about 30° degrees when viewed from the end of the divider. The played continuously. Longer lifetimes were not possible with a looping tank was Wlled with water, and an escape platform was placed just below requirement, and thus dot lifetimes of 2 and 12 frames limited the maxi- V the surface directly under one of the monitors. The platform was always mum e ective coherence to 50 and 92%, respectively (Bischof, Reid, Wylie, located below the positive (+; reinforced) stimulus. Visual stimuli were & Spetch, 1999). generated by, and the experiments were controlled with custom software. Frame duration set the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) for the dots to appear on two successive frames, and frame duration was a multiple of the video screen refresh rate. In the experiments with rats, 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 19, and 26 screen refreshes were employed. As the monitors had an 85 Hz ver- tical refresh rate, these values translate to frame durations of 12, 24, 48, 94, 153, 224, and 306 ms. Video – + Monitors 2.4. Behavioral testing The animals were trained to associate swimming to the positive stimu- Submerged lus, regardless of its left/right location, with escape from water. The initial Platform training consisted of training the rat or mouse to distinguish between 100 and 0% coherence. Rats learned to grasp the end of the divider and inspect both screens before making a choice; mice tended to slow down at the bar- rier and swim back and forth before making a choice. After an animal had Wnished a trial, it was returned to a holding box to dry and groom while the other 5 animals completed the same trial. Sessions consisted of 15–20 Choice trials per animal. The training kinematograms had a step size of 0.471°, a Plane frame duration of 12 ms, and a lifetime of 10 frames. Once the rats reached at least 80% accuracy over a block of 10 trials, we changed the task to identifying the direction of motion. This had the advantage that the kinematograms on the two monitors were identical in coherence, step size, frame duration, and lifetime, and only diVered in Water 0% Coherence 100% Coherence Start Point Fig. 1. Schematic top-view of the Visual Water Task. The task uses a trape- zoidal pool with two computer monitors at one end displaying either a pos- Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of stimulus attributes. Motion coherence dis- itive (+, reinforced) or negative (¡, non-reinforced) stimulus. An escape plays consisted of multiple dots that could move in any direction across platform is placed below the monitor showing the positive stimulus and the frames. After moving on 2 or 12 successive frames, the dot disappeared left/right position of the pair is randomized. The platform surface is just and a new dot was created at another random location on the screen below the water level and is not visible to the animal. Animals are released (dashed circles).