Visual processing of the zebrafish optic tectum before and after optic nerve damage

2004 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANGELA L. McDOWELL ◽  
LEE J. DIXON ◽  
JENNIFER D. HOUCHINS ◽  
JOSEPH BILOTTA

Although the zebrafish has become an important model in visual neuroscience, little has been done to examine the processing of its higher visual centers. The purpose of this work was twofold. The first purpose was to examine the physiology of the zebrafish retinotectal system and its relationship to retinal physiology. Spectral sensitivity functions were derived from visually evoked tectal responses and these functions were compared to the functions of electroretinogram (ERG) responses obtained using the same stimulus conditions. The second purpose was to examine the recovery of visual functioning of the tectum following optic nerve damage. The optic nerves of adult zebrafish were damaged (crushed), and tectal visual processing was assessed following damage. The results showed that the spectral sensitivity functions based on the On-responses of the tectum and ERG were qualitatively similar. The functions based on each response type received similar cone contributions including both nonopponent and opponent contributions. However, the spectral sensitivity functions based on the Off-responses of the tectum and ERG differed. The results also showed that the zebrafish visual system is capable of neural regeneration. By 90 days following an optic nerve crush, the spectral sensitivity function based on the tectal On-response was similar to functions obtained from normal zebrafish. Although the tectal Off-response did recover, the spectral sensitivity based on the Off-response was not the same as the function of normal zebrafish. These results support the notion that different levels of the visual system process information differently and that the zebrafish visual system, like those of other lower vertebrates, is capable of functional regeneration.

2012 ◽  
Vol 108 (9) ◽  
pp. 2494-2500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena G. Sergeeva ◽  
Anton B. Fedorov ◽  
Petra Henrich-Noack ◽  
Bernhard A. Sabel

Noninvasive alternating current stimulation can induce vision restoration in patients with chronic optic nerve damage and results in electroencephalogram (EEG) aftereffects. To better understand the mechanisms of action, we studied such EEG “aftereffects” of transcorneal alternating current stimulation (tACS) at the chronic posttraumatic state in rats. EEG baseline was recorded from visual cortex under ketamine/xylazine narcosis of healthy rats and rats with chronic severe optic nerve crush. One week later, both groups were again anesthetized and stimulated transcorneally twice for 12 min each time. tACS-induced changes were compared with baseline EEG. Over the course of 65 min narcosis baseline EEG revealed a shift from a dominant delta power to theta. This shift was significantly delayed in lesioned animals compared with healthy controls. tACS applied during the late narcosis stage in normal rats led to significantly increased theta power with a parallel shift of the dominating peak to higher frequency which outlasted the stimulation period by 15 min (aftereffects). EEG in lesioned rats was not significantly changed. In rodents, tACS can induce neuroplasticity as shown by EEG aftereffects that outlast the stimulation period. But this requires a minimal level of brain activation because aftereffects are not seen when tACS is applied during deep anesthesia and not when applied to animals after severe optic nerve damage. We conclude that tACS is only effective to induce cortical plasticity when the the retina can be excited.


Ophthalmology ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfredo A. Sadun ◽  
Carl J. Bassi

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renu Agarwal ◽  
NatashaNajwa Nor Arfuzir ◽  
Igor Iezhitsa ◽  
Puneet Agarwal ◽  
Sabrilhakim Sidek ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-273
Author(s):  
Jung-Hoon Lee ◽  
Chan-Hwi Park ◽  
Kyu-Sup Cho ◽  
Hwan-Jung Roh

Ophthalmology ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 100 (10) ◽  
pp. 1498-1503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. O'Connor ◽  
Thierry Zeyen ◽  
Joseph Caprioli

2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 1100-1103
Author(s):  
Peter Wostyn ◽  
Veva De Groot ◽  
Debby Van Dam ◽  
Kurt Audenaert ◽  
Peter Paul De Deyn ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document