Mice and primates use distinct strategies for visual segmentation
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.
-
Data from: Mice and primates use distinct strategies for visual segmentationDryad Digital Repository, doi:10.5061/dryad.ngf1vhhvp.
Article and author information
Author details
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
-
- 2,931
- views
-
- 351
- downloads
-
- 10
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- Computational and Systems Biology
- Evolutionary Biology
As pathogens spread in a population of hosts, immunity is built up, and the pool of susceptible individuals are depleted. This generates selective pressure, to which many human RNA viruses, such as influenza virus or SARS-CoV-2, respond with rapid antigenic evolution and frequent emergence of immune evasive variants. However, the host’s immune systems adapt, and older immune responses wane, such that escape variants only enjoy a growth advantage for a limited time. If variant growth dynamics and reshaping of host-immunity operate on comparable time scales, viral adaptation is determined by eco-evolutionary interactions that are not captured by models of rapid evolution in a fixed environment. Here, we use a Susceptible/Infected model to describe the interaction between an evolving viral population in a dynamic but immunologically diverse host population. We show that depending on strain cross-immunity, heterogeneity of the host population, and durability of immune responses, escape variants initially grow exponentially, but lose their growth advantage before reaching high frequencies. Their subsequent dynamics follows an anomalous random walk determined by future escape variants and results in variant trajectories that are unpredictable. This model can explain the apparent contradiction between the clearly adaptive nature of antigenic evolution and the quasi-neutral dynamics of high-frequency variants observed for influenza viruses.
-
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
- Evolutionary Biology
Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.