Main Menu (Mobile)- Block

Main Menu - Block

janelia7_blocks-janelia7_secondary_menu | block
More in this page
janelia7_blocks-janelia7_fake_breadcrumb | block
Huston Lab / Publications
general_search_page-panel_pane_1 | views_panes

6 Publications

Showing 1-6 of 6 results
04/03/17 | Sensorimotor Neuroscience: Motor Precision Meets Vision.
Longden KD, Huston SJ, Reiser MB
Current Biology : CB. 2017 Apr 03;27(7):R261-R263. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.047

Visual motion sensing neurons in the fly also encode a range of behavior-related signals. These nonvisual inputs appear to be used to correct some of the challenges of visually guided locomotion.

View Publication Page
10/21/15 | Neural encoding of odors during active sampling and in turbulent plumes.
Huston SJ, Stopfer M, Cassenaer S, Aldworth ZN, Laurent G
Neuron. 2015 Oct 21;88(2):403-18. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.007

Sensory inputs are often fluctuating and intermittent, yet animals reliably utilize them to direct behavior. Here we ask how natural stimulus fluctuations influence the dynamic neural encoding of odors. Using the locust olfactory system, we isolated two main causes of odor intermittency: chaotic odor plumes and active sampling behaviors. Despite their irregularity, chaotic odor plumes still drove dynamic neural response features including the synchronization, temporal patterning, and short-term plasticity of spiking in projection neurons, enabling classifier-based stimulus identification and activating downstream decoders (Kenyon cells). Locusts can also impose odor intermittency through active sampling movements with their unrestrained antennae. Odors triggered immediate, spatially targeted antennal scanning that, paradoxically, weakened individual neural responses. However, these frequent but weaker responses were highly informative about stimulus location. Thus, not only are odor-elicited dynamic neural responses compatible with natural stimulus fluctuations and important for stimulus identification, but locusts actively increase intermittency, possibly to improve stimulus localization.

View Publication Page
06/01/12 | Solitary and gregarious locusts differ in circadian rhythmicity of a visual output neuron.
Gaten E, Huston SJ, Dowse HB, Matheson T
Journal of BiologicalRrhythms. 2012 Jun;27(3):196-205. doi: 10.1177/0748730412440860

Locusts demonstrate remarkable phenotypic plasticity driven by changes in population density. This density dependent phase polyphenism is associated with many physiological, behavioral, and morphological changes, including observations that cryptic solitarious (solitary-reared) individuals start to fly at dusk, whereas gregarious (crowd-reared) individuals are day-active. We have recorded for 24-36 h, from an identified visual output neuron, the descending contralateral movement detector (DCMD) of Schistocerca gregaria in solitarious and gregarious animals. DCMD signals impending collision and participates in flight avoidance maneuvers. The strength of DCMD’s response to looming stimuli, characterized by the number of evoked spikes and peak firing rate, varies approximately sinusoidally with a period close to 24 h under constant light in solitarious locusts. In gregarious individuals the 24-h pattern is more complex, being modified by secondary ultradian rhythms. DCMD’s strongest responses occur around expected dusk in solitarious locusts but up to 6 h earlier in gregarious locusts, matching the times of day at which locusts of each type are most active. We thus demonstrate a neuronal correlate of a temporal shift in behavior that is observed in gregarious locusts. Our ability to alter the nature of a circadian rhythm by manipulating the rearing density of locusts under identical light-dark cycles may provide important tools to investigate further the mechanisms underlying diurnal rhythmicity.

View Publication Page
06/24/11 | Studying sensorimotor integration in insects.
Huston* SJ, Jayaraman V
Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2011 Jun 24;21(4):527-34. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2011.05.030

Sensorimotor integration is a field rich in theory backed by a large body of psychophysical evidence. Relating the underlying neural circuitry to these theories has, however, been more challenging. With a wide array of complex behaviors coordinated by their small brains, insects provide powerful model systems to study key features of sensorimotor integration at a mechanistic level. Insect neural circuits perform both hard-wired and learned sensorimotor transformations. They modulate their neural processing based on both internal variables, such as the animal’s behavioral state, and external ones, such as the time of day. Here we present some studies using insect model systems that have produced insights, at the level of individual neurons, about sensorimotor integration and the various ways in which it can be modified by context.

View Publication Page
10/21/09 | Nonlinear integration of visual and haltere inputs in fly neck motor neurons.
Huston SJ, Krapp HG
The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2009 Oct 21;29(42):13097-105. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2915-09.2009

Animals use information from multiple sensory organs to generate appropriate behavior. Exactly how these different sensory inputs are fused at the motor system is not well understood. Here we study how fly neck motor neurons integrate information from two well characterized sensory systems: visual information from the compound eye and gyroscopic information from the mechanosensory halteres. Extracellular recordings reveal that a subpopulation of neck motor neurons display "gating-like" behavior: they do not fire action potentials in response to visual stimuli alone but will do so if the halteres are coactivated. Intracellular recordings show that these motor neurons receive small, sustained subthreshold visual inputs in addition to larger inputs that are phase locked to haltere movements. Our results suggest that the nonlinear gating-like effect results from summation of these two inputs with the action potential threshold providing the nonlinearity. As a result of this summation, the sustained visual depolarization is transformed into a temporally structured train of action potentials synchronized to the haltere beating movements. This simple mechanism efficiently fuses two different sensory signals and may also explain the context-dependent effects of visual inputs on fly behavior.

View Publication Page
07/22/08 | Visuomotor transformation in the fly gaze stabilization system.
Huston SJ, Krapp HG
PLoS Biology. 2008 Jul 22;6(7):e173. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060173

For sensory signals to control an animal’s behavior, they must first be transformed into a format appropriate for use by its motor systems. This fundamental problem is faced by all animals, including humans. Beyond simple reflexes, little is known about how such sensorimotor transformations take place. Here we describe how the outputs of a well-characterized population of fly visual interneurons, lobula plate tangential cells (LPTCs), are used by the animal’s gaze-stabilizing neck motor system. The LPTCs respond to visual input arising from both self-rotations and translations of the fly. The neck motor system however is involved in gaze stabilization and thus mainly controls compensatory head rotations. We investigated how the neck motor system is able to selectively extract rotation information from the mixed responses of the LPTCs. We recorded extracellularly from fly neck motor neurons (NMNs) and mapped the directional preferences across their extended visual receptive fields. Our results suggest that-like the tangential cells-NMNs are tuned to panoramic retinal image shifts, or optic flow fields, which occur when the fly rotates about particular body axes. In many cases, tangential cells and motor neurons appear to be tuned to similar axes of rotation, resulting in a correlation between the coordinate systems the two neural populations employ. However, in contrast to the primarily monocular receptive fields of the tangential cells, most NMNs are sensitive to visual motion presented to either eye. This results in the NMNs being more selective for rotation than the LPTCs. Thus, the neck motor system increases its rotation selectivity by a comparatively simple mechanism: the integration of binocular visual motion information.

View Publication Page