Object Recognition: Do rats see like we see?

Like primates, the rat brain areas thought to be involved in visual object recognition are arranged in a hierarchy.
  1. Nicole C Rust  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Pennsylvania, United States

In our eyes, cells called photoreceptors convert the world around us into a pixel-like representation. Our brains must then reorganize this into a representation that reflects the identities of the objects we are looking at. The same object can be represented by very different pixel patterns, depending on its distance from us, the viewing angle and the lighting conditions. Conversely, different objects can be represented by pixel patterns that are similar. This is what makes object recognition a tremendously challenging problem for our brains to solve, and we do not fully understand how our brains manage to recognize objects.

Nonhuman primates (such as rhesus monkeys) are routinely used to study object recognition because their brains are similar to ours in many ways. However, there are advantages to working with mice and rats, including access to an array of modern biotechnological tools that have been optimized for these species. These tools include sophisticated ways to measure neural activity (Svoboda and Yasuda, 2006), to manipulate neural activity (Fenno et al., 2011), and to map how neurons are connected together within and between brain areas (Oh et al., 2014).

Skepticism that rodents could be used to gain insight into object recognition has largely been targeted at the ways in which rodent visual systems deviate from our own. For example, the retinae of mice and rats are specialized for seeing in the dark, and they lack a region called the fovea that allows humans to see objects in great detail at the center of the gaze. The visual cortex is also organized differently in primates and rodents with regard to how neurons with similar preferences for visual stimuli are clustered together within each brain area, and a much smaller fraction of the rodent cortex is devoted to visual processing. In light of all of these differences, can we really learn much about how our brains recognize objects by studying how rodents see?

In an earlier study, Davide Zoccolan and colleagues presented behavioral evidence that rats are capable of identifying objects under variations in viewing conditions (Zoccolan et al., 2009). Now, in eLife, Zoccolan and co-workers at SISSA in Trieste, the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia and Harvard Medical School – including Sina Tafazoli and Houman Safaai as joint first authors – present evidence that this behavior is supported by four visual areas of the brain that are arranged in a functional hierarchy (Tafazoli et al., 2017). This is analogous to how object processing happens in the primate brain (DiCarlo et al., 2012).

Researchers had previously relied on anatomical evidence to argue that visual brain areas in rats are organized in a hierarchical fashion (Coogan and Burkhalter, 1993). Tafazoli et al. recorded the activity of four of these areas – termed V1, LM, LI and LL – in response to different objects as they systematically changed a number of variables (such as the position, size and luminance of each object). With this data, they quantified how much information each brain area reflected about the identity of the object, as well as how that information was formatted.

A key insight came from analyzing the degree to which changes in the neural responses to different objects could be attributed to differences in object luminance as opposed to object shape. Compared to the other brain areas, the firing rate of the neurons in V1 (the first brain area in the hierarchy) depended more strongly on the amount of luminance within the region of the visual field that each neuron was sensitive to. Moving through the hierarchy, an increasingly large proportion of the responses of the neurons reflected information about the shape of the object. At the same time, there was a systematic increase in the degree to which information about object identity was formatted in a manner that would make it easy for higher brain areas to access this information (DiCarlo and Cox, 2007).

In the face of considerable evidence that object processing in rats and primates is different, Tafazoli et al. have uncovered a compelling similarity. By design, their study has strong parallels with the studies that established a hierarchy for object processing in the primate brain, and their results suggest that rats and primates may perform object recognition in broadly similar ways. Future work will be required to determine the degree to which the nuts-and-bolts of object processing are in fact the same between the species.

References

    1. Coogan TA
    2. Burkhalter A
    (1993)
    Hierarchical organization of areas in rat visual cortex
    Journal of Neuroscience 13:3749–3772.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nicole C Rust

    Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    nrust@sas.upenn.edu
    Competing interests
    The author declares that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7820-6696

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: April 12, 2017 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2017, Rust

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,001
    views
  • 202
    downloads
  • 0
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Nicole C Rust
(2017)
Object Recognition: Do rats see like we see?
eLife 6:e26401.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26401

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Salima Messaoudi, Ada Allam ... Isabelle Caille
    Research Article

    The fragile X syndrome (FXS) represents the most prevalent form of inherited intellectual disability and is the first monogenic cause of autism spectrum disorder. FXS results from the absence of the RNA-binding protein FMRP (fragile X messenger ribonucleoprotein). Neuronal migration is an essential step of brain development allowing displacement of neurons from their germinal niches to their final integration site. The precise role of FMRP in neuronal migration remains largely unexplored. Using live imaging of postnatal rostral migratory stream (RMS) neurons in Fmr1-null mice, we observed that the absence of FMRP leads to delayed neuronal migration and altered trajectory, associated with defects of centrosomal movement. RNA-interference-induced knockdown of Fmr1 shows that these migratory defects are cell-autonomous. Notably, the primary Fmrp mRNA target implicated in these migratory defects is microtubule-associated protein 1B (MAP1B). Knocking down MAP1B expression effectively rescued most of the observed migratory defects. Finally, we elucidate the molecular mechanisms at play by demonstrating that the absence of FMRP induces defects in the cage of microtubules surrounding the nucleus of migrating neurons, which is rescued by MAP1B knockdown. Our findings reveal a novel neurodevelopmental role for FMRP in collaboration with MAP1B, jointly orchestrating neuronal migration by influencing the microtubular cytoskeleton.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Maximilian Nagel, Marco Niestroj ... Marc Spehr
    Research Article

    In most mammals, conspecific chemosensory communication relies on semiochemical release within complex bodily secretions and subsequent stimulus detection by the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Urine, a rich source of ethologically relevant chemosignals, conveys detailed information about sex, social hierarchy, health, and reproductive state, which becomes accessible to a conspecific via vomeronasal sampling. So far, however, numerous aspects of social chemosignaling along the vomeronasal pathway remain unclear. Moreover, since virtually all research on vomeronasal physiology is based on secretions derived from inbred laboratory mice, it remains uncertain whether such stimuli provide a true representation of potentially more relevant cues found in the wild. Here, we combine a robust low-noise VNO activity assay with comparative molecular profiling of sex- and strain-specific mouse urine samples from two inbred laboratory strains as well as from wild mice. With comprehensive molecular portraits of these secretions, VNO activity analysis now enables us to (i) assess whether and, if so, how much sex/strain-selective ‘raw’ chemical information in urine is accessible via vomeronasal sampling; (ii) identify which chemicals exhibit sufficient discriminatory power to signal an animal’s sex, strain, or both; (iii) determine the extent to which wild mouse secretions are unique; and (iv) analyze whether vomeronasal response profiles differ between strains. We report both sex- and, in particular, strain-selective VNO representations of chemical information. Within the urinary ‘secretome’, both volatile compounds and proteins exhibit sufficient discriminative power to provide sex- and strain-specific molecular fingerprints. While total protein amount is substantially enriched in male urine, females secrete a larger variety at overall comparatively low concentrations. Surprisingly, the molecular spectrum of wild mouse urine does not dramatically exceed that of inbred strains. Finally, vomeronasal response profiles differ between C57BL/6 and BALB/c animals, with particularly disparate representations of female semiochemicals.