Mice and primates use distinct strategies for visual segmentation

  1. Francisco J Luongo
  2. Lu Liu
  3. Chun Lum Andy Ho
  4. Janis K Hesse
  5. Joseph B Wekselblatt
  6. Francesco Lanfranchi
  7. Daniel Huber
  8. Doris Y Tsao  Is a corresponding author
  1. California Institute of Technology, United States
  2. University of Geneva, Switzerland
  3. University of California, Berkeley, United States

Abstract

The rodent visual system has attracted great interest in recent years due to its experimental tractability, but the fundamental mechanisms used by the mouse to represent the visual world remain unclear. In the primate, researchers have argued from both behavioral and neural evidence that a key step in visual representation is 'figure-ground segmentation', the delineation of figures as distinct from backgrounds (Nakayama, He, and Shimojo 1995; Lamme 1995; Poort et al. 2012; Qiu and Heydt 2005). To determine if mice also show behavioral and neural signatures of figure-ground segmentation, we trained mice on a figure-ground segmentation task where figures were defined by gratings and naturalistic textures moving counterphase to the background. Unlike primates, mice were severely limited in their ability to segment figure from ground using the opponent motion cue, with segmentation behavior strongly dependent on the specific carrier pattern. Remarkably, when mice were forced to localize naturalistic patterns defined by opponent motion, they adopted a strategy of brute force memorization of texture patterns. In contrast, primates, including humans, macaques, and mouse lemurs, could readily segment figures independent of carrier pattern using the opponent motion cue. Consistent with mouse behavior, neural responses to the same stimuli recorded in mouse visual areas V1, RL, and LM also did not support texture-invariant segmentation of figures using opponent motion. Modeling revealed tha­t the texture dependence of both the mouse's behavior and neural responses could be explained by a feedforward neural network lacking explicit segmentation capabilities. These findings reveal a fundamental limitation in the ability of mice to segment visual objects compared to primates.

Data availability

Source data has been provided to replicate all neural and behavioral figures (2,3,4,5,6,7). These data have been uploaded to dryad: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ngf1vhhvp.Sufficient modeling details have been provided in methods section to replicate relevant parts of figure 8.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Francisco J Luongo

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Lu Liu

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Chun Lum Andy Ho

    Department of Basic Neurosciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Janis K Hesse

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Joseph B Wekselblatt

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Francesco Lanfranchi

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Daniel Huber

    Department of Basic Neurosciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Doris Y Tsao

    University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    For correspondence
    dortsao@berkeley.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1083-1919

Funding

NIH , Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Doris Y Tsao

Arnold O. Beckman postdoctoral fellowship, Burroughs Wellcome PDEP Award

  • Francisco J Luongo

Swiss National Science Foundation

  • Daniel Huber

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The following animals were used in this study: adult mice 2-12 months old, both male and female; adult treeshrews 7-18 months old, both male and female; adult mouse lemurs 2-3.5 yrs, both male and female; and adult macaques 3 and 7 yrs old, male. All procedures on mice, macaques, and tree shrews were conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the California Institute of Technology.Mouse lemur experiments were in accordance with European animal welfare regulations and were reviewed by the local ethics committee ('Comite d'éthique en expérimentation animale No. 68') in Brunoy, France, by the ethics committee of the University of Geneva, Switzerland and authorized by the French 'Ministère de l'education nationale de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche."

Copyright

© 2023, Luongo et al.

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

Metrics

  • 3,057
    views
  • 356
    downloads
  • 14
    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. Francisco J Luongo
  2. Lu Liu
  3. Chun Lum Andy Ho
  4. Janis K Hesse
  5. Joseph B Wekselblatt
  6. Francesco Lanfranchi
  7. Daniel Huber
  8. Doris Y Tsao
(2023)
Mice and primates use distinct strategies for visual segmentation
eLife 12:e74394.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74394

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74394

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    Ljiljana Mihajlovic, Bharat Ravi Iyengar ... Yolanda Schaerli
    Research Article

    Gene duplication drives evolution by providing raw material for proteins with novel functions. An influential hypothesis by Ohno (1970) posits that gene duplication helps genes tolerate new mutations and thus facilitates the evolution of new phenotypes. Competing hypotheses argue that deleterious mutations will usually inactivate gene duplicates too rapidly for Ohno’s hypothesis to work. We experimentally tested Ohno’s hypothesis by evolving one or exactly two copies of a gene encoding a fluorescent protein in Escherichia coli through several rounds of mutation and selection. We analyzed the genotypic and phenotypic evolutionary dynamics of the evolving populations through high-throughput DNA sequencing, biochemical assays, and engineering of selected variants. In support of Ohno’s hypothesis, populations carrying two gene copies displayed higher mutational robustness than those carrying a single gene copy. Consequently, the double-copy populations experienced relaxed purifying selection, evolved higher phenotypic and genetic diversity, carried more mutations and accumulated combinations of key beneficial mutations earlier. However, their phenotypic evolution was not accelerated, possibly because one gene copy rapidly became inactivated by deleterious mutations. Our work provides an experimental platform to test models of evolution by gene duplication, and it supports alternatives to Ohno’s hypothesis that point to the importance of gene dosage.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    Lucy A Winder, Mirre JP Simons, Terry Burke
    Research Article

    Life-history theory, central to our understanding of diversity in morphology, behaviour, and senescence, describes how traits evolve through the optimisation of trade-offs in investment. Despite considerable study, there is only minimal support for trade-offs within species between the two traits most closely linked to fitness – reproductive effort and survival – questioning the theory’s general validity. We used a meta-analysis to separate the effects of individual quality (positive survival/reproduction correlation) from the costs of reproduction (negative survival/reproduction correlation) using studies of reproductive effort and parental survival in birds. Experimental enlargement of brood size caused reduced parental survival. However, the effect size of brood size manipulation was small and opposite to the effect of phenotypic quality, as we found that individuals that naturally produced larger clutches also survived better. The opposite effects on parental survival in experimental and observational studies of reproductive effort provide the first meta-analytic evidence for theory suggesting that quality differences mask trade-offs. Fitness projections using the overall effect size revealed that reproduction presented negligible costs, except when reproductive effort was forced beyond the maximum level observed within species, to that seen between species. We conclude that there is little support for the most fundamental life-history trade-off, between reproductive effort and survival, operating within a population. We suggest that within species the fitness landscape of the reproduction–survival trade-off is flat until it reaches the boundaries of the between-species fast–slow life-history continuum. Our results provide a quantitative explanation as to why the costs of reproduction are not apparent and why variation in reproductive effort persists within species.